W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > July 2012

RE: [ACTION-160] (related to [ACTION-135] too) Summarize specialRequirements

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:58:05 +0200
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, "'Fredrik Estreen'" <Fredrik.Estreen@lionbridge.com>
Message-ID: <assp.0537f26d25.assp.0537f306fb.000a01cd5da8$9365bea0$ba313be0$@com>
Hi Felix, all,

> So I think - if I understand you correctly - what 
> you want to achieve is that tools that make use 
> of metadata that is coming from various sources 
> (XLIFF, ITS, PO, ..). Currently that metadata is 
> not coming at all, or only in priority ways. The 
> aim now is to have one agreed metadata definition 
> for max-size, right?
> ...
> ...
> What worries me then is that we aim to create a 
> single piece of metadata, which is not part of the 
> big picture. That raises several questions / requirements:

Maybe it'll help to go back at the root of this requirement (as far as I understand it):

Sometimes a string to be translated has a limitation on how long it can be. The limitation can be in the storage (fixed length DB field in a CMS for example), or in the display: We are talking about the storage here.

What I think ITS needs to provide is the way to pass that information down the consumer tools so the limitation can be verified at some stage (for example: during the translation, or/and at a QA step after).

That's the "big picture" for me. I'm not sure what you mean by "special purpose length solution". To me the proposal Giuseppe has for maxStorgeSize is rather general.

But maybe I'm missing your point.
-yves
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 07:58:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:47 UTC