xliff-comment

 View Only

  • 1.  Comment on XLIFF v2.2 CSD01: 4.9.7.4 Additional recommendations

    Posted 10-10-2024 17:39
     Dear TC,

    I'm submitting this feedback on behalf of Tomáš Beluský, who's waiting for his account to be approved:

    I understand that these are just recommendations, but how about adding a recommendation on what to do in case the source language contains a case which does not exist in the target language? Should it be simply omitted, or put into notes for more context?

    Also adding a missing form to a target language might be difficult if the other case is missing. Just a real life example: We in Phrase (formerly Memsource) have improved the support of ICU forms in several file formats and do the following for plural in case languages support different cases:
    • Keyword forms:
      • If a target case is missing in the source, we will create it and copy text from other form as it is a default form. The other case is required so we can always do this.
      • If a source segment contains a case which is not supported in the target, it will be ignored and thrown away. This also includes unknown forms.
    • Number forms:
      • Generate the same forms as the ones in source.

    Best regards,
    Jano


  • 2.  RE: Comment on XLIFF v2.2 CSD01: 4.9.7.4 Additional recommendations

    Posted 10-22-2024 17:05

    Hi,

    I'm replying on behalf of Mihai Niță, who wrote the Plural, Gender and Select module.

    = = = = = 


    > I understand that these are just recommendations, but how about adding a recommendation on what to do in case the source language contains a case which does not exist in the target language? Should it be simply omitted, or put into notes for more context?

    Yes, omitting it is the correct action.

    > Also adding a missing form to a target language might be difficult if the other case is missing.

    The "other" case must be present, at least in ICU.

    > We in Phrase (formerly Memsource) have improved the support ...

    100% agree.
    We do something similar.
    And I also know about a few other companies doing the same.

    My thinking is that the spec is often too formal / short / technical / dry to go into details.

    And I was planing to create a separate document.
    Similar with what XLIFF 1.2 provided Java Properties (https://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/v1.2/xliff-profile-java/xliff-profile-java-v1.2-cd02.html), HTML (https://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/v1.2/xliff-profile-html/xliff-profile-html-1.2.html) and gettext .po files (https://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/v1.2/xliff-profile-po/xliff-profile-po-1.2.html)

    What do you think?

    = = = = = 

    Regards,

    Rodolfo



    ------------------------------
    --
    Rodolfo M. Raya rmraya@maxprograms.com
    Maxprograms https://www.maxprograms.com
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Comment on XLIFF v2.2 CSD01: 4.9.7.4 Additional recommendations

    Posted 11-12-2024 09:54

    > And I was planing to create a separate document.

    Yes, that would be great!



    ------------------------------
    Tomáš Beluský
    Public View
    ------------------------------

    Original Message