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

Re: [all] ITS to XLIFF Mapping

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:48:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czp1=cf+7PxJTd_yf72SaTChhFX+E5s9svCDrxFjghr_Sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Yves, all,

2012/10/12 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>

> Hi all,
>
> In Prague we discussed a bit about the need to have a common way to
> represent ITS data categories in XLIFF, and a possible best practice
> document on this.
>
> I've started a wiki page with some notes on mapping ITS data categories to
> XLIFF markup, it's here:
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/XLIFF_Mapping
>
> Some parts of ITS can be mapped directly to existing XLIFF elements or
> attributes, other parts will need to use some form of extension. We should
> probably agree on a namespace for those and, once we have the mapping
> completed, create a schema for it to go with the table.
>
> Currently the Okapi libraries use its own namespace for the extensions,
> but we'll adjust this to the common one.
>
> How should we proceed?
>
> I suppose some of us can have a chat about this next week at
> Redmond/Seattle, but we probably want to have a thread on this in this
> mailing list. As long as it's correctly labeled people not affected can
> identify and skip those emails.
>
> What do you think Felix? Should I raise an issue so we can track this?
>
>
That would be useful - we can then use the issue name in the mail subject,
and people who are not working on this can skip it. Wrt "how to proceed":
although this is not a normative features of ITS 2.0, having test files
(generic XML / HTML5 / DocBook etc. in > XLIFF+ITS out) seems to be quite
useful. Maybe also for the roundtripping, though it seems there is a n:1
mapping from the source format to XLIFF, e.g. all of these
<span its:translate=no">...
<code its:translate=no">...
would end up in
<mrk mtype="protected">
So should this be part of the or a different "real life usage" test suite?

On the "how to proceed" part: do we need to involve the XLIFF TC formally
here? By no means I am pushing for that (less formal = faster progress),
just asking. In terms of the actual work being done we already have many
people in both TCs, so that shouldn't be a problem. Nevertheless a timeline
might be good (with milestones like mapping definition, mapping test case
dev, mapping testing, etc.).

I won't be at the XLIFF TC meeting on Monday (flying in Monday evening to
Seattle), but in case it is helpful, you can let the TC people know that I
think such a mapping will be very useful.

Best,

Felix


> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Sunday, 14 October 2012 06:48:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:55 UTC