RE: [all] Question on mapping best practices [Issue-55]

Shaun's resolved the question by eliminating the ITS case.
So we'll go with a 3rd namespace in the cases where all ITS attributes can't be used for some reasons.

For documenting the conversation: I think Dave scribed our call.


From: Felix Sasaki [] 
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 12:12 PM
To: Yves Savourel
Subject: Re: [all] Question on mapping best practices

Hi Yves, all,

a side note: would it be possible to document the XLIFF mapping conversation? I don't mean the current state of the mapping, but the discussion and meetings (e.g. in Seattle and the call today). Without any minutes or at least summary it is hard to contribute or judge on proposes to change ITS. The announcement that there is a discussion
and a follow up call doesn't provide a lot of details. 

Wrt to your comments and ITS mechanisms: why use them at all? Why not specifying the mapping in general, e.g. in a separate profile of ITS "how to use ITS in XLIFF"? We then won't need to use any ITS mechanisms at all - an ITS implementation can use the mapping or not.

Above answer may be not enough, let's take it from where.


2012/10/26 Yves Savourel <>
Hi all,

While mapping ITS to XLIFf we ran into cases of mapping that may occur elsewhere and for which an ITS guideline may be helpful.

Here is the case:

The localization note has two pieces of information:  a) the text of the note and b) a type (description|alert)

When mapping an inline note to XLIFF we can use this:

<mrk mtype='x-itsNote' comment='[text of the note]' its:locNoteType='alert'>...</mrk>

Or this:

<mrk mtype='x-itsNote' comment='[text of the note]' ZZZ:locNoteType='alert'>...</mrk>

The comment attribute is where XLIFF is expected to put the note, and because there is no equivalent to the note type we use a non-XLIFF attribute there. The question is can/should we use the ITS attribute or another one?

In both cases if we want to process the file with an ITS processor, we have to use global rules:

<its:locNoteRule selector="//mrk[@its:locNoteType='alert']"
 locNotePointer="@comment" locNoteType='alert'/>

<its:locNoteRule selector="//mrk[@its:locNoteType='description']"
 locNotePointer="@comment" locNoteType='description'/>


<its:locNoteRule selector="//mrk[@ZZZ:locNoteType='alert']"
 locNotePointer="@comment" locNoteType='alert'/>

<its:locNoteRule selector="//mrk[@ZZZ:locNoteType='description']"
 locNotePointer="@comment" locNoteType='description'/>

I think both would work.
But we're not sure if the best thing to do for the local attribute is to use a native ITS attribute or define a new namespace and use something from there.

Any thoughts?


Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow

Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 18:30:16 UTC