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

Kevin and I can talk about that and get back to you.



From: Yves Savourel []
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 9:49 PM
To: 'Felix Sasaki'; 'Michael Kruppa'
Cc:;; Kevin O'Donnell
Subject: RE: Re: Re: [ACTION-160] (related to [ACTION-135] too) Summarize specialRequirements

Hi Felix, Micha, all,

--- forbiddenChars:

Yes, a simple list of the forbidden characters would work for us too.

That was Giuseppeís initial proposal more or less.

Itís too bad no-one has time to come up with a sub-set of regex expressions, but I know it would be time consuming and fraught with pitfalls.

One thought: In the XLIFF TC, during the discussion about extensions and the <metaHolder> element, I now recall some examples by Kevin OíDonnell (from Microsoft) that included user-defined regex properties, presumably to allow verification. See (in the example at the end).

It would be good to know if he (or someone else at Microsoft) could comment on the use of a common simple regex sub-set for forbiddenChars as we discussed.

(@Kevin: see thread starting here:

But Iím guessing Kevinís property may go beyond checking for forbidden chars.

As for XLIFF compatibility: there is no way to break interoperability with 1.2 since the value for charclass is not really defined. For 2.0: I donít think there are anyone working on such feature. So ITS may be the go-to solution.

--- maxStorageSize:

For maxStorageSize: I believe Fredrik said he would try to post his proposal this week, or next. He also mentioned he had some ideas that could allow to map ITSís potential approach.



Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 05:07:46 UTC