Hi Yoshito, I know at least two implementations that support pointing ref to the id of a <segment>. Stating that it is equivalent to pointing to the id of a <mrk> element that encloses all <source> content might be the best option. I'm not happy either with allowing <pc> as a holder of annotated text. I just mentioned it because it is a valid container for text spans. In any case, we need to fix all ref attributes providing better examples. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya Maxprograms
http://www.maxprograms.com -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [xliff] ref value in translation candidates module element <mtc:match> From: Yoshito Umaoka <
yoshito_umaoka@us.ibm.com > Date: Tue, April 06, 2021 7:41 pm To: Rodolfo M. Raya <
rmraya@maxprograms.com > Cc:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org <
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Hi Rodolfo, > I think we need to modify current specs and clarify the three different ref attributes. Yes, I agree. > 1) if the <source> in <mtc:match> matches the whole <source> of a <segment>, ref should point to the id of that <segment> I think we should be careful about this. As far as I know, examples found online and the book A Practical Guide to XLIFF 2.0 (you're co-author!) use <mrk> to annotate entire source segment, and <mtc:match> refers to the <mrk> annotation. I could not find any examples pointing to segment element except broken example (missing #) in XLIFF 2.x spec. So, I suspect someone who uses the translation candidate module assume <mrk> annotation must be used. I can imagine some implementators may prefer to use <mrk> annotation for this purpose. I think we probably just state that pointing to segment is equivalent to pointing <mrk> element enclosing entire <source> element value in the segment, and avoid should point to the id of that <segment> . > 2) If the <source> in <mtc:match> matches a fragment in the <source> of a <segment>, ref should point to the id of the <mrk> or <pc> element that encloses the matched text. I personally don't like to allow <pc> here. I feel it's just not practical, and introducing extra complexity. If we allow <pc>, we may also allow any kind of <mrk>, not limited to type= mtc:match . > I'm ignoring the case where the <source> of <mtc:macth> points to the whole content or a fragment of <target> in <segment>. I don't think this should be allowed but there may be some use cases. Right. I don't think many people including me to <mtc:match> pointing to a fragment of target segment. But I can imagine legitimate use case - For example, if a tentative translation is provided, and the translation is already used for different source text in the past, then translator may change translation to distinguish one from another. In general, I agree that this use case is practically ignorable. -Yoshito