- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:38:51 +0100
- To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL58czo-diQ7PwZ1H77BHdLdmCxaTDoDNWGKc=_aEixH=mTnBw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Yves, all, thanks a lot for this. I would propose to close issue-51 (too many global rules) - not only given the XLIFF timeline, but also other discussions (e.g. about mtconfidence) I don't think that we will reach consensus within the next weeks what global rules to drop and what not. I would, however, propose an action item for each data category owner to come up with "as realistic as possible" examples to demonstrate the usefulness of global rules. Thoughts? Felix 2012/11/8 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> > Hi all, > > Just an update on the XLIFF mapping. > > We needed to see if the XLIFF TC was going to allow native ITS markup in > <mrk>, as it is the only way we can really support some data categories as > XLIFF metadata and at the same time allow an ITS processor to work with the > file. > > > The proposal led to some discussion at the last TC meeting on Thursday and > some email discussion. > > It looks like extensions would not be allowed in <mrk> but the necessary > ITS attributes may be allowed there through a module. > > This led to other discussions about what should and should not be allowed > in a module and even how modules will be adding to XLIFF once the core is > done. > > You can read all this here: > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201211/maillist.html > (although you probably want to avoid it) > > There *seem* to be some agreement (at least no valid argument against) > that native ITS attribute should be OK as a module in <mrk> when ITS 2.0 is > done. > > It's hard to say if/when there will be a final formal agreement. But at > this point I think we have to proceed with the assumption that we will be > able to use ITS attributes in <mrk>. > > Maybe David has another opinion? > > > I would however still recommend to have a pointer version of any attribute > that reference a standoff annotation. > > The reason is that otherwise the reference URI has to be set in two > different attributes: the native ITS one and the native XLIFF one. Why is > that? Because XLIFF processor--even if they do not support the ITS > module--must be able to delete the annotation and therefore know what the > URI is to also delete the standoff part. Such tool have processing > requirements to use the ref attribute to get the URI. So even if we could > use the native ITS attribute we want to set the reference in ref. Having > the pointer attribute would allow both ITS and XLIFF processors to use the > same attribute. > > In other words, if we don't have locQualityIssuesRefPointer we would have > to do this: > > <mrk id='1' type='its:LQI' ref="#idOfStandoffElement" > its:locQualityIssuesRef="#idOfStandoffElement">abc</mrk> > > If we have a locQualityIssuesRefPointer that would allow the markup to be > this: > > <mrk id='1' type='its:LQI' ref="#idOfStandoffElement">abc</mrk> > > > I believe that is the only pointer XLIFF would need for the data > categories that have standoff markup. > > For the other data categories, if they have more than one information we > can use the native ITS markup, if they have one information we can either > use a pointer if one is available, or use the native markup. > > The only question mark is the case of Storage Size for which there might > be a module coming up. But the deadline for new features proposal is the > week after next and we have not seen anything yet. > > Cheers, > -yves > > > > -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 15:39:20 UTC