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

In my (not strong) opinion, in this section less is better.
That is: there is probably no need to mention what exactly the mapping original->XLIFF entails in the specification itself.

But I'm ok with your initial sentence if you think it's better.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Lewis [] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:43 AM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc: <>
Subject: Re: [ISSUE-55] input to ITS2.0 section 'XLIFF Mapping'

On 30 May 2013, at 01:07, Yves Savourel <> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
> Sounds good overall.
> I'm not sure I understand completely the two parts of:
>> 1) the mapping of ITS meta-data in a source document into XLIFF and 
>> ITS meta-data of the translatable content in XLIFF file;
> What is the difference between source document and translatable content?
> Yes, they are different things, but essentially it's the same thing: the source document.

Thanks yves.

I'm indicating that the extraction process involves some mapping decisions, i.e. wemay drop source content due to locale filter, or
translate. Or we apply meta data at the trans unit or segment level that may have been inherited for source annotation at a level
not captured in xliff, e.g. Via global rules or A div containing the divs corresponding to trans units.

But perhaps i should be more explicit in referring to extraction and segmentation here?


> -ys
> From: Dave Lewis []
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: [ISSUE-55] input to ITS2.0 section 'XLIFF Mapping'
> Here's some suggested reworking of the text for this section of the 
> ITS2.0 specification
> "The XML Localization Interchange File Format [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]. 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 on XLIFF, however a  non-normative
definition of how to represent ITS 2.0 data categories in XLIFF 1.2 or XLIFF 2.0 is being defined within the Internationalization
Tag Set Interest Group.
>  "
> The current text adds:
> "Readers of this specification are encouraged to evaluate whether that 
> mapping fulfills their needs and to provide comments in the ITS IG mailing list (public archive)."
> 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 Thursday, 30 May 2013 11:39:11 UTC