RE: Update to XLIFF mapping for terminology use case

Hi Dave,

Thank you for the answers.
I believe it is almost clear now. One last question:

The "x-its" value for mtype - is it specifically created to address xml:lang (I ask it because it seems rather generic and maybe it should be treated with caution)? That is, can it be used (or will it be possible to use it) also to indicate of other specific mapping related annotation presence in the XLIFF content. 

Best regards,
Mārcis ;o)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Lewis [] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 3:23 PM
To: Mārcis Pinnis
Cc:; Pēteris Ņikiforovs; Artūrs Vasiļevskis; Tatiana Gornostay
Subject: Re: Update to XLIFF mapping for terminology use case

Thanks Marcis, comments inline:

On 07/05/2013 12:08, Mārcis Pinnis wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> Thanks for the information.
>  From our point, as far as I can tell (by quickly skimming through):
> 1) Terminology is OK
> 2) For Language Information what does the example represent? It is not clear to me how mtype="x-its" relates to xml:lang="en" (that is, the mapping is not clear to me here). Apart from that, I see that no changes have been made...

We use


to indicate that the mrk is introduced to support the language value transformed from ITS (rather than added natively by an XLIFF processor)
- so its more informative and otherwise not different from native usage.

> 3) Elements Within Text is OK
> 4) Domain is OK, but ... when will the namespace be defined? And ... why are there multiple namespaces? its and itsx? Is there a reason why it is not enough to use just one?
There are two reasons:

1) the itsx namespace is used when the attribute isn't  defined in ITS. 
So here, there is no annotations for defining domains exactly, just though mappings and pointers, but when processed it results in a domian annotation (as in the test suite)

2) the attribute exists in ITS, but some of the meaning is lost in the transform to XLIFF, so it need to be treated in a way that differs from what a 'pure' ITS processor would expect.

The namespace will be:

Felix now has an action to deploy this, so it will be resolvable soon.

let me know if we can help explain anything further?


> 5) Locale Filter is OK.
> Best regards,
> Mārcis ;o)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Lewis []
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 1:34 PM
> To: Mārcis Pinnis;
> Subject: Update to XLIFF mapping for terminology use case
> Hi Marcis,
> We've just finished a session in Bled where we've tried to address your comments on the XLIFF mapping. Could you take a quick look at:

> to check if the ssues whihc you are concerned with are addressed. If you can get back quikly we can try and respond while the XLIFF heads are around the table here.
> cheers,
> Dave

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 12:33:34 UTC