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

RE: [all] ITS to XLIFF Mapping [Issue-55]

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:51:30 -0700
To: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <assp.0636a4693f.assp.06365f752c.000901cdab51$876d2470$96476d50$@com>
Hi Dave,

> I see in the table in: 
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/XLIFF_Mapping
> that you have mapping for the structural and the inline specified for 
> some data categories. Is the intetion that thse can coexist in an 
> individual data category with ITS-like overide and default rules, 
> or would their use be mutually exclusive?
> i.e. the its mark-up applies only to all the content in the trans unit,
> OR it is specified separately for each mrk?

The in-line markup would override the markup in the structural part (since the structural part is always parent of the inline part).

For example a translate='no' in the <unit> can be overridden with a <mrk id='1' translate='yes'> inside the content>.

> The latter seems needed to support direct mapping to exisitng XLIFF 
> mark-up, but it means we don't treat XLIFF files as a XML file in 
> all cases, which seems a bit 'messy'.

I think now, with the target Pointer data category, one could process an XLIFF document with a pure ITS-aware processor, we would just have to define the rules for XLIFF. So I think an XLIFF document could be treated like any other XML+ITS document. But XLIFF processor would probably read the ITS-in-XLIFF markup directly rather than rely an ITS processor, as it's easier.

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 03:52:00 UTC

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