OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

Dear Bryan, [I am quite sure that you are the owner although I cannot lookup the wiki right now :-)] If there are no PRs, no one will be ever able to delete the module data. This is just the gravest consequence. Other than that, PRs (and definitions as needed) should be provided that could support a 'naive implementer', i.e. someone without the L10n tribal knowledge. Most importantly the module specification should state in unambiguous terms that the metadata module (as a native extensibility mechanism) MUST not compete for functionality with any features defined in the current version of core or modules. In particular, it should be made clear that mda MUST NOT be misused for carrying matches or glossary entries. Other issues with this module: [Please start separate threads if you want to discuss the minor issues..] 04.01) type is a required attribute of <meta> but the spec (neither core nor module) does not contain the definition and or standard values for type IN metadata. (Only values for inlines are specified in core) Cheers dF Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC CNGL LT-Web CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

David, Thank you for identifying this issue. Rodolfo became co-owner of this feature and took the lead in creating the technical implementation. I will be happy to take a look at its PR and core/module loose ends after today. While these are vitally important, my focus for today must me to facilitate the discussion of up or down votes for all of the proposed features in section 2 of the wiki. I think that will take 100% of my effort. But I will commit to turning my energy to this issue after the meeting today. Thanks, Bryan ________________________________ From: Dr. David Filip [David.Filip@ul.ie] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:20 AM To: Schnabel, Bryan S; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #04 - No PRs in metadata module Dear Bryan, [I am quite sure that you are the owner although I cannot lookup the wiki right now :-)] If there are no PRs, no one will be ever able to delete the module data. This is just the gravest consequence. Other than that, PRs (and definitions as needed) should be provided that could support a 'naive implementer', i.e. someone without the L10n tribal knowledge. Most importantly the module specification should state in unambiguous terms that the metadata module (as a native extensibility mechanism) MUST not compete for functionality with any features defined in the current version of core or modules. In particular, it should be made clear that mda MUST NOT be misused for carrying matches or glossary entries. Other issues with this module: [Please start separate threads if you want to discuss the minor issues..] 04.01) type is a required attribute of <meta> but the spec (neither core nor module) does not contain the definition and or standard values for type IN metadata. (Only values for inlines are specified in core) Cheers dF Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC CNGL LT-Web CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie< mailto:david.filip@ul.ie >

I have a related question brought on by this statement:   >> In particular, it should be made clear that mda MUST NOT be misused for carrying matches or glossary entries.   At Microsoft, we have *extensive* terminology data that goes beyond simple Term Translation Definition. We have things like part-of-speech, usage notes, product version, etc. If we cannot carry all of our glossary information together in the Metadata module currently, then perhaps we could add it to the Glossary module so we can. After all, I can embed <mda:metadata> in the <matches> module, why not the <glossary> module as well?   ryan   From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:21 AM To: bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #04 - No PRs in metadata module   Dear Bryan, [I am quite sure that you are the owner although I cannot lookup the wiki right now :-)]   If there are no PRs, no one will be ever able to delete the module data. This is just the gravest consequence.   Other than that, PRs (and definitions as needed) should be provided that could support a 'naive implementer', i.e. someone without the L10n tribal knowledge. Most importantly the module specification should state in unambiguous terms that the metadata module (as a native extensibility mechanism) MUST not compete for functionality with any features defined in the current version of core or modules. In particular, it should be made clear that mda MUST NOT be misused for carrying matches or glossary entries.   Other issues with this module: [Please start separate threads if you want to discuss the minor issues..]   04.01) type is a required attribute of <meta> but the spec (neither core nor module) does not contain the definition and or standard values for type IN metadata. (Only values for inlines are specified in core)   Cheers dF         Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC CNGL LT-Web CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie  

To be clear: … then perhaps we could add it … – “it” means <mda:metadata>.   From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Ryan King Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:20 PM To: Dr. David Filip; bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #04 - No PRs in metadata module   I have a related question brought on by this statement:   >> In particular, it should be made clear that mda MUST NOT be misused for carrying matches or glossary entries.   At Microsoft, we have *extensive* terminology data that goes beyond simple Term Translation Definition. We have things like part-of-speech, usage notes, product version, etc. If we cannot carry all of our glossary information together in the Metadata module currently, then perhaps we could add it to the Glossary module so we can. After all, I can embed <mda:metadata> in the <matches> module, why not the <glossary> module as well?   ryan   From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:21 AM To: bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com ; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #04 - No PRs in metadata module   Dear Bryan, [I am quite sure that you are the owner although I cannot lookup the wiki right now :-)]   If there are no PRs, no one will be ever able to delete the module data. This is just the gravest consequence.   Other than that, PRs (and definitions as needed) should be provided that could support a 'naive implementer', i.e. someone without the L10n tribal knowledge. Most importantly the module specification should state in unambiguous terms that the metadata module (as a native extensibility mechanism) MUST not compete for functionality with any features defined in the current version of core or modules. In particular, it should be made clear that mda MUST NOT be misused for carrying matches or glossary entries.   Other issues with this module: [Please start separate threads if you want to discuss the minor issues..]   04.01) type is a required attribute of <meta> but the spec (neither core nor module) does not contain the definition and or standard values for type IN metadata. (Only values for inlines are specified in core)   Cheers dF         Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC CNGL LT-Web CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie