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

I agree with dropping the IG feedback bit
It is good that it describes the full cycle, in contrast to the 1.0
downstream flow

Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> -ys
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:43 AM
> To: Yves Savourel
> Cc: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: [ISSUE-55] input to ITS2.0 section 1.4.5.2 'XLIFF Mapping'
>
>
>
> On 30 May 2013, at 01:07, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> 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?
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>
> > -ys
> >
> >
> > From: Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:54 PM
> > To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> > Subject: [ISSUE-55] input to ITS2.0 section 1.4.5.2 '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
> >
> >
>
>
>