Hi All, Regarding David’s comments in “Actions (to be) Taken” on the Issue Tracker on comment 018: A] make Glossary Module more expressive: 1) make <glossentry> extensible by both elements and attributes, 2) make children extensible by attributes, 3) Introduce id to be able to reference back from <mrk type="term">; B] Remove <glossary> from <file> // duplicate of 36 and 50 (master) In the F2F in London, I think we talked about only allowing elements from any namespace in <glossentry>, however, if people are ok with the level of extensibility David suggests above, I think this will be more consistent with the level of extensibility that exists in other modules. So, I’m updating item 4.b in the proposal to the following: 1. Add an id attribute to <glossentry> so that it can be referenced by a term annotation. 2. Add a ref attribute to <glossentry> to reference a <segment> within the scope of a <unit> where segmentation/re-segmentation can occur. 3. Change the source attribute on <definition> to be optional. 4. EITHER a. Add <mda:metadata> to <glossentry> OR b. Allow elements and attributes from any namespace in <glossentry> and allow attributes from any namespace in children of <glossentry> From:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Ryan King Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 1:55 PM To:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [xliff] csprod01 comments 018, 024, 028, 036, 050 and F2F meeting - Extending the Glossary module. Hi All, I would like to put forth two proposals for extending the glossary module based on comment 018, 024, 028, 036, 050 and the discussion we had in the F2F in London. I propose the following: 1. Add an id attribute to <glossentry> so that it can be referenced by a term annotation. 2. Add a ref attribute to <glossentry> to reference a <segment> within the scope of a <unit> where segmentation/re-segmentation can occur. 3. Change the source attribute on <definition> to be optional. 4. EITHER a. Add <mda:metadata> to <glossentry> OR b. Allow elements from any namespace in <glossentry> I would prefer 4.a because then tool implementers could at least treat the data in a way that is consistent with metadata overall. Here are examples of the proposal: <unit> <segment id="s1"> <source>Hello <mrk id="m1" type="term" ref="#g1">World</mrk></source> </segment> … </unit> <gls:glossary> <glossentry id="g1" ref="s1"> <term></term> <translation></translation> <definition></definition> <mda:metadata></mda:metadata> </glossentry> </gls:glossary> <unit> <segment id="s1"> <source>Hello <mrk id="m1" type="term" ref="#g1">World</mrk></source> </segment> … </unit> <gls:glossary> <glossentry id="g1" ref="s1"> <term></term> <translation></translation> <definition></definition> <xyz:any></xyz:any> </glossentry> </gls:glossary> Thanks for your consideration, Ryan