Re: [all] readiness and translation process parameters

Hi Arle,
I agree, leaving this to Linport and ISO was the broad intent of that 
transParam proposal - they are the right people to do this.

Further, I agree a dumb pointer to an external doc would be a reasonable 
alternative to name-value pairs - what do the LSP and client people 
think? Is this something people would be interested in implementing?

As with the earlier transParam suggestion, this is soft on conformance, 
but a bit more specific in referring to Linport/ISO to solve this. But 
like the standoff provenance and PROV WG discussion, the maturity of 
this external work is a factor. Could you say a bit more about this 
normative status you mention? Can the documents be made available to the WG?

I guess it would look like

   xmlns:its=""    version="2.0">
  <its:transParam selector="/html/body" transParamRef="/"//>


On 04/07/2012 09:14, Arle Lommel wrote:
> I think it makes sense to leave the ISO TS 11669 bits to Linport and 
> ISO for now. Although they are now normatively defined I don't see 
> that we need to address them. Alternatively we have a data category 
> that simply allows us to reference these, but we make it a "dumb" 
> pointer only and not try to define anything beyond the linking 
> mechanism, which would allow us to add it without worry about schedule.
> Arle
> On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:02, Dave Lewis < 
> <>> wrote:
>> I will address each separately in another post, but my primary 
>> observation is that many relate to instruction specifically for 
>> translation to be carried out on the whole document. This is 
>> consistent with the overlap with ISO/TS 11669 observed in comments . 
>> Taking the ISO/TS 11669 related summary at:
>> these are essentially parameters to a translation job specification, 
>> but also work in progress and perhaps something that will be 
>> difficult to align with normatively in our timeframe (arle?). 

Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 12:10:00 UTC