- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:37:02 -0600
- To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
- CC: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
> So that means we need only the standoff markup pointer rules, > and no other pointer attributes from the XLIFF point of view? Yes, I believe so. There are cases like xlf:maxbytes that could be mapped to such information, but in this case it also needs other attributes (encoding, etc.) and because the overriding is complete, I don't think you can have a mixed of some info using pointers and other using ITS direct markup for a given data category. In any case Storage Size is not in your list of data categories to be amputated of their global rules. > Here it would be interesting to have some data: have you written > and used in ITS 1.0 "real life" global rules that add information > *without fixed values* to attributes or elements? Yes, definitely. Very frequently with Localization Note. I'm less concerned with 'complex/rare' data categories like Disambiguation, or MT Confidence, because it's unlikely an existing format has the equivalent. > The discussion about dropping global rules started with an example > of localization note > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Sep/0138.html Yeah, about that: You'll note that my initial remark had nothing to do with pointers. It was a concern about having examples using global rules to annotate selected nodes in the document. Those actually don't use pointers at all. Cheers, -yves
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 13:37:35 UTC