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
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>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC