OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

  • 1.  Minor comments on the specifications

    Posted 04-10-2012 20:32
    Hi Rodolfo, all, I was looking at the OASIS specifications in general and had two general comments: === a) In our XLIFF 2.0 unpublished draft we use the RFC 2119 keywords in lowercase because the template originally says to do so: "The key words must, must not, required, shall, shall not, should, should not, recommended, may, and optional are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. Note that for reasons of style, these words are not capitalized in this document." To me using capital letter is important because it draws the attention of the reader and make the intent of the statement much more clear (IMO). Other OASIS specifications (even recent ones) have no problem using the capital notation: - http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xrd/v1.0/os/xrd-1.0-os.html - http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/sstc-saml-approved-errata-2.0.pdf - http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2-os.html - http://docs.oasis-open.org/soa-rm/v1.0/soa-rm.html - and many more So I wonder if we could forget about the official style recommendation and use capitals like in most documents using RFC 2119? === b) HTML output. I know we are using the normal OASIS template for HTML, so there is not much we can do. But I think the style choices are quite weird: from the colors, to the font size, to the spacing, etc. IMO the document looks quite bad. That's pretty sad for the authoritative version of the specification. Any idea if someone is working on improving the OASIS styles for this? Cheers, -yves


  • 2.  RE: [xliff] Minor comments on the specifications

    Posted 04-11-2012 00:57
    Hi, I don't mind highlighting "must", "should", "may" etc. All I would ask is to enclose them in <emphasis> so the stylesheets work. Using <glossterm> is wrong, as we are explicitly not including a glossary that defines those words, we rely on external documents. The HTML version is generated using the official XSL stylesheet, which produces horribly styled HTML. I asked before if we could change it and Mary said no. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya rmraya@maxprograms.com Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com >
    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: [xliff] Minor comments on the specifications

    Posted 04-11-2012 10:52
    Hi Rodolfo, all, > I don't mind highlighting "must", "should", "may" etc. > All I would ask is to enclose them in <emphasis> so the stylesheets > work. Using <glossterm> is wrong, as we are explicitly not including a > glossary that defines those words, we rely on external documents. Great. <emphasis> would be a plus. What about simply uppercase? Less formatting and clearer (IMO). I know RFC 2119 doesn't say we SHOULD use uppercase, but many OASIS specifications do, as well as all W3C ones: readers of specifications are used to it and understand what it means. Just a thought. > The HTML version is generated using the official XSL stylesheet, which > produces horribly styled HTML. > I asked before if we could change it and Mary said no. Oh well... Cheers, -yves


  • 4.  RE: [xliff] Minor comments on the specifications

    Posted 04-11-2012 16:52
    >
    Original Message


Related Content