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

Hi Yves, all,

2012/7/11 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>

> 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.
>

Sorry, I was not clear: I meant compatibility with upcoming solutions in
XLIFF 2.0


> For 2.0: I don’t think there are anyone working on such feature. So ITS
> may be the go-to solution.
>

Great.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --- 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.
>

Great too :)

Best,

Felix

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> -ys****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow