RE: Do we need a local markup for Domain & resourceRef


Sounds to me as if we are revisiting

Quote:  1.       As it stands, "domain" only allows "pointing". Some scenarios may require a "direct encoding" (e.g. via something like its-domain="financials")


-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 20. März 2013 22:46
Subject: RE: Do we need a local markup for Domain & resourceRef

>> That's not quite true. XLIFF documents can be made of data 
>> coming from various source, so potentially one could have 
>> different domains in the same document, the lowest level 
>> is probably the trans-unit.
> ok ... so could you then define the domain attribute in the 
> mapping namespace and point to all its occurances in 
> an its2xliff rules file?

Mmm... yes. that's what we already do.

For example we have: <trans-unit itsx:domain='travel'>

If that XLIFF document must be processed by an ITS-aware tool, we can have a global rule (forget any incorrect XPath syntax...):

<its:domainRule selector='//*[itsx:domain]' domainPointer='@itsx:domain'/>

But the point is: we had to create itsx:domain to hold the domain value. If we had to do it for XLIFF, other formats, may have to create their own domain attribute for their own usage too. So that's where a common native its:domain would come handy.

Again, I'm not pushing for the addition: nothing is broken. Also, a local its:domain is not very powerful: we can't do value mapping with it.
But I'm not holding back either because it feels that ITS is missing a small piece for its Domain solution.
Maybe waiting for ITS 2.1 is good enough...

Hopefully this explanation helps.

Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 07:43:49 UTC