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

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



Thanks,



Jan

________________________________
From: Yves Savourel [ysavourel@enlaso.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 9:49 PM
To: 'Felix Sasaki'; 'Michael Kruppa'
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org; fredrik.estreen@lionbridge.com; 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 Giuseppe’s initial proposal more or less.



It’s 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 O’Donnell (from Microsoft) that included user-defined regex properties, presumably to allow verification. See https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201205/msg00053.html (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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jul/0066.html)



But I’m guessing Kevin’s 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 don’t 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 ITS’s potential approach.



Cheers,

-ys