W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > May 2013

[ISSUE-55] input to ITS2.0 section 1.4.5.2 'XLIFF Mapping'

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 22:54:07 +0100
Message-ID: <51A678FF.5060709@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Here's some suggested reworking of the text for this section of the 
ITS2.0 specification

"The XML Localization Interchange File Format [XLIFF] 
<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#xliff>is 
an OASIS standard that enables translatable source text and its 
translation to be passed between different tools within localisation and 
translation workflows. It has been widely implemented in translation 
management systems, computer supported translation tools and in 
utilities for extracting translatable content from source documents. The 
mapping between ITS and XLIFF therefore unpins several important ITS2.0 
usage scenarios [MLW US IMPL] 
<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#mlw-metadata-us-impl>. 
These usage scenarios involve: 1) the mapping of ITS meta-data in a 
source document into XLIFF and ITS meta-data of the translatable content 
in XLIFF file; 2) the addition of ITS meta-data into an XLIFF file by 
translation tools; and 3) the mapping of ITS meta-data in an XLIFF file 
into ITS meta-data in the resulting target language files. ITS 2.0 has 
no normative dependency onXLIFF, however a non-normative definition of 
how to represent ITS 2.0 data categories in XLIFF 1.2 or XLIFF 2.0 
<http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_Mapping>is being defined 
within theInternationalization Tag Set Interest Group 
<http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/>.

  "

The current text adds:

"Readers of this specification are encouraged to evaluate whether that 
mapping fulfills their needs and to provide comments in theITS IG 
mailing list (public archive) 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig>."


but I think we should drop this for the recommendation as it may become 
(quickly) out of date once the mapping is firmed up.

cheers,
Dave
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 21:54:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:09 UTC