Re: [all] ITS to XLIFF Mapping

Felix, this should be one of the main points of the public part of the
I notified the Chair and the Secretary (Yves was on the call :-) that the
external people (both from this group :-)) coming will open this.

If we consolidate on a simple set of extension features, the namespace
could be pushed as a module and so have better status than a private
extension. The profile could become a co-published best practice note.
Anyway, this is what I want to propose on Monday..


Dr. David Filip
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Felix Sasaki <> wrote:

> Hi Yves, all,
> 2012/10/12 Yves Savourel <>
>> 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:
>> 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 07:59:09 UTC