MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
xliff message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] XLIFF 1.0 issues
Thanks for the information. Can I ask then, does the tool information
capture the version of the tool aswell - is it just a free-text
attribute?
Reason: The responsibiility to produce the count in the first instance
is the responsibility of the content parser. As the parser may be
revised X times to address defects, add functionality etc, can we look
at a standardised way of specifying the tool/parser and version?
Is this XLIFF group, or some subcommitte looking at a tools registry,
i.e., agreed and standard names for the tools out there or some form of
guidelines for creating these Tool names?
Finally, is there a plan to integrate/leverage the LISA findings on this
topic?
Steve.
S t e p h e n H o l m e s
Localisation Development Manager
International Product Development
Voice: +353 (1) 241 5732
Fax: +353 (1) 241 5749
Novell, Inc., THE leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
>>> John Reid <JREID@novell.com> 04/12/02 19:05 PM >>>
On Point 1:
[Alt-jr1] The purpose for including the tool as an attribute of the
<count-group> is so that Tool Y will know that the counts it is about to
use/update are not theirs. Thus, Tool Y may want to produce its own.
However, if Tool Y is compatable with Tool X, then it can use Tool X's
counts. Meanwhile, Tool X can find its own counts and update,
accordingly.
<count-group tool="Tool X" name="example">
<count count-type="untranslated">132</count>
</count-group>
This does become complicated, though, when Tool Z is used. Tool Z may
have a compatibility issue with Tool Y but not ToolX. If Tool Y updated
Tool X's counts, Tool Z may use those inaccurately.
[Alt-jr2] There is another solution to this: We already have a <phase>
element that stores the tool used in that phase. The phase-name
attribute could be added to <count>. Thus, when that count was produced
and by what, could be ascertained by any subsequent tool and a
determination of if to use the count could be made.
<phase-group>
<phase phase-name="create" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool X"
date="2002-04-10T09:41:02Z"/>
</phase-group>
..
<count-group name="example">
<count phase-name="create" count-type="untranslated">132</count>
</count-group>
Then again, with either method, a tool has to update the attribute of a
count or count-group element and historical data is lost. Thus, adding
the phase-name or the tool attribute methods have essentially the same
consequence: Tool Z knows which tool last touched the named count. Using
a tool attribute has the advantage of being in the scope of the current
node. The phase-name has the advantage of carrying additional
information such as date.
[Alt-jr3] Another alternative is to add a new element to <count-group>,
such as <update>, that has attributes of tool and date. Thus, multiple
updates could be recorded for a <count-group>. This would need to be at
the <count-group> level since we do want to keep the contents of <count>
to the actual count.
<count-group name="example">
<update tool="Tool X" date="2002-04-10T09:41:02Z"/>
<count phase-name="create" count-type="untranslated">132</count>
</count-group>
This solution has the disadvantage that it implies an update to all the
counts within a <count-group> of which there may be many and only one
updated. This is also a weakness for adding the tool attribute to
<count-group>.
Alt-jr2 can be used to keep historical data since ther is no
restriction on the number of counts that can be stored within the
<count-group>. Thus, Tool X can supply a count in phase 1,
<phase-group>
<phase phase-name="create" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool X"
date="2002-04-10T09:41:02Z"/>
</phase-group>
..
<count-group name="example">
<count phase-name="create" count-type="untranslated">132</count>
</count-group>
Tool Y can add an update to it in phase 2,
<phase-group>
<phase phase-name="create" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool X"
date="2002-04-10T09:41:02Z"/>
<phase phase-name="translate" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool Y"
date="2002-04-11T11:43:04Z"/>
</phase-group>
..
<count-group name="example">
<count phase-name="create" count-type="untranslated">132</count>
<count phase-name="translate" count-type="untranslated">43</count>
</count-group>
and Tool Z can update Tool X's count and ignore Tool Z's in phase 3.
<phase-group>
<phase phase-name="create" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool X"
date="2002-04-10T09:41:02Z"/>
<phase phase-name="translate" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool Y"
date="2002-04-11T10:42:03Z"/>
<phase phase-name="review" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool Z"
date="2002-04-12T11:43:04Z"/>
</phase-group>
..
<count-group name="example">
<count phase-name="create" count-type="untranslated">132</count>
<count phase-name="translate" count-type="untranslated">43</count>
<count phase-name="review" count-type="untranslated">56</count>
</count-group>
Thoughts?
cheers,
john
>>> Stephen Holmes <sholmes@novell.com> 4/11/02 4:44:58 PM >>>
On point 1, I'd just make the comment that the value of adding the
tool
that created the wordcount as an attribute is of relatively little use
if you take a situation where, for example, "Tool X" generates the
data,
but "Tool Y" reads it for processing and has different ideas about
what
consitutes a word count.
It's an age old problem in localisation - "Who has the correct word
count?". As tools may be completely proprietary, even if based on
XLIFF
containers, I see no reason in complicating the attribute qualifiers.
This may become the topic of a subcommitte...
On point 3 - bear in mind that localisatin/language tools that aspire
to
be network-based will find base64 encoded content to be monumentally
large to transfer. Europe, remember, is still predominantly 56K and
we
all remember the hassle involved in FedEx'ing CD's to China - business
reality supercedes specification.
Cheers
Steve.
S t e p h e n H o l m e s
Localisation Development Manager
International Product Development
Voice: +353 (1) 241 5732
Fax: +353 (1) 241 5749
Novell, Inc., THE leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
>>> John Reid <JREID@novell.com> 04/11/02 19:02 PM >>>
Hi All,
My comments follow Mark's, between <jr>...</jr> tags.
>>> Mark Levins <mark_levins@ie.ibm.com> 4/5/02 5:59:53 AM >>>
1. <note> as a child of <count>
Currently the <count> element is very ambiguous, a note as a child
element
could be used to indicate what was being counted, what was considered
a
word etc.
<jr>The <count-group> and <count> elements can be very problematic. A
<note> element within the <count> element may help in the customized
support required by these elements but that is a human readable
approach
and probably would need to be defined even more to be truly useful. A
stronger definition of the count element may do more for us.
<count> has the 'unit' attribute which has recommended values of word,
page, trans-unit, bin-unit, and item. The latter three are defined
according to elements within the spec but the former two must be
defined
by the tool creating the count. I suggest that we include the tool as
an
attribute to the count-group. This would be the same attribute used in
<file>, <phase>, and <alt-trans>. Further refinement of the 'unit'
attribute may alo be necessary.</jr>
2. The <count-group>, <prop-group> and <context-group> elements can be
used within a <group> without any other relevant child elements
The 1.0 specification allows that a <group> element can contain (for
example) a <count-group> without containing anything to count. I think
the
<group> element should be changed to contain at least one of <group>,
<trans-unit> or <bin-unit>.
<jr>Shouldn't this requirement be placed on the <body> also?</jr>
3. Binary elements & <internal-file>
This is kind of a big one. At the moment the specification does not
define
the form of the content of the <internal-file> element (although there
is
an optional 'form' attribute). The problem is see with this is that
the
specification allows users place binary data directly as content -
this
binary content may contain the reserved XML characters < > etc which
will
cause parsers to choke.
The CDATA section approach is also not good enough to provide a
solution.
My suggestion is that the content of the <internal-file> be restricted
to
Base64 or at least stated so.
Also, the description in the spec for the <internal-file> element
reads
"The <internal-file> element will contain the data for the skeleton
file."
which is technically wrong, it may also contain data for an
<bin-source>
or <bin-target> element.
<jr>How does CDATA fail this purpose? I wouldn't want to restrict this
to just Base64; thus, requiring a conversion for both the producer and
any subsequent processor that may be able to handle the original
format
without a problem. Additionally, wouldn't we need an attribute such as
'original-format' if we forced your conversion?</jr>
4. mime-type attribute of <bin-source>
How come this attribute is omitted from the <bin-source> element? Note
that it is an attribute of <bin-target>
<jr>We generally put attributes for <source> and <bin-source> in the
parent, <trans-unt> and <bin-unit>, respectively. The 'mime-type'
attribute of the target allows a different mime-type for the target in
cases where it differs from that specified from the <bin-unit>'s.
Otherwise, the mime-type of the target is unnecessary.</jr>
Cheers,
john
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC