Re: [xliff] ITS: Preserve space and Language Information

I believe we are talking about the OASIS hosted

   -

   urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1

XLIFF TC recorded consensus to use one OASIS hosted namespace for all that
is needed for the mapping..
Also in the last ITS IG call we said that it is better to have all
attributes defined in the XLIFF TC prefixed namespace for various reasons..

The reason most relevant here is that the scope of the XLIFF defined its
attributes will include spans delimited by empty boundary markers apart
from well formed spans.

This will be the case also for its:space and its:lang

Cheers
dF

Dr. David Filip
=======================
OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, and Liaison Officer
LRC | CNGL | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> HI Yves, David, all,
>
> one clarification question: Yves used in his examples the its:lang and
> its:space attributes. Is the idea to add things to the OASIS to be hosted
> ITS namespace or to add attributes to the W3C ITS namespaces? In the past
> we discussed the former.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 24.10.2014 um 10:55 schrieb Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>:
>
> Thanks, Yves, inline
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Going from a structural element to an inline one in the Terminology case
>> is easy: you don't lose anything.
>> But forcing some inline formatting information to drive segmentation is
>> completely different and very restrictive.
>> In addition to losing granularity you also assume the segmentation is
>> done by the extractor agent.
>>
> I don't understand what losing granularity means, as I understand
> granularity, you get more of it IMHO, if you make whitespace handling and
> language info structural..
> Anyways, I see your point that it is not ideal to force Extractors to
> segment in order to handle a relatively frequent extraction issue.
> And i do see value in deferring the segmentation issues by putting the its
> info inline..
>
>>
>> I see plenty of technical documents where inline formatting mixes spans
>> of true text with fixed-space sections. Elements like <code>, <var>, <kbd>,
>> etc. in HTML (and their counterparts in DITA, DocBook, etc.) are examples
>> of such spans where the style often requires preserving the spaces. There
>> is no way we can reasonably use segmentation to apply that information.
>>
>> The bottom line is that if we didn't have <sm/> we would not have this
>> discussion and everyone would see xml:space and xml:lang as perfectly
>> natural in <mrk>. This tells me the issue is how to represent those two
>> features with <sm/>.
>>
> Yes
>
>> Trying to rationalize how we can avoid inline cases is just wishful
>> thinking.
>>
>> Ideally what we should have done in 2.0 was to allow xml:lang and
>> xml:space in <mrk> and declare XLIFF Core attributes ‘space’ and ‘lang’ for
>> <sm/> to work around the scope issue.
>>
>> But we are at 2.1 now, and we can't modify the Core.
>>
> Yes, we cannot
>
>> So, in my opinion, using the ITS module to get an inline solution seems
>> to be the best we can do now.
>>
> I agree
> And I think it is actually better to have the inline semantics of these
> attributes defined in one module..
> So I am OK with defining those two  attributes in the its module namespace
> Still, as I said in the other thread, I'd keep the informative description
> of what you can do with core only, of course moved into the partial support
> section..
>
> Cheers
> dF
>
> Dr. David Filip
> =======================
> OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, and Liaison Officer
> LRC | CNGL | CSIS
> University of Limerick, Ireland
> telephone: +353-6120-2781
> *cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
> http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452
> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
>
>
>