Teleconference - Aug-10-2010 - 13:30 UTC

Uh oh. It looks like the OASIS server is now sending out
duplicate messages. I'll mention it to our OASIS administrator.









From:
 [mailto:]

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 2:08 PM

To: ; ;


Subject: RE: [xliff-inline] Teleconference - Aug-10-2010 - 13:30 UTC -
Minutes







Hi all,



I like the new wording for
a). 



And I know the example was
not meant to be included in the actual requirements. But if we were going to
include an example, I would make a case to make it also comply with requirement
18 (which I recently proposed), that says for well-formed XML input that does
not span segments (like this sample, "I like
<i>italics</i>."), it is best practice to preserve the inline
XML element as an XML node.



So I would rather see an
example of the XLIFF that preserves the node.



Not like this:

XLIFF: I like
<XLIFFtagOfSomeSort/>italics<XLIFFtagOfSomeSort/>.



But rather like this:

XLIFF: I like
<XLIFFtagOfSomeSort>italics</XLIFFtagOfSomeSort>.



Now if the source was, say,
RTF:

{\insrsid12611904
\hich\af35\dbch\af11\loch\f35 I like }

{\i\insrsid12611904\charrsid12611904
\hich\af35\dbch\af11\loch\f35 italics}

{\insrsid11469172 \par }



I'd be less picky about
preserving the inline as an XML node.



I know my hair-splitting is
off-topic for requirement 12. Forgive me for trying to set the stage for
requirement 18.



Thanks,



Bryan









From:
Arle Lommel [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arle Lommel

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:04 AM

To: Yves Savourel; 

Subject: Re: [xliff-inline] Teleconference - Aug-10-2010 - 13:30 UTC -
Minutes







Yves, on further consideration,
how about we rephrase point A as:


a) to store only the XLIFF representation, discarding the native data


I think this is clearer, because it's not really that we're just discarding everything,
as in the following:


Source: I like <i>italics</i>.

XLIFF: I like italics.


But rather going for something like this:


XLIFF: I like <XLIFFtagOfSomeSort/>italics<XLIFFtagOfSomeSort/>.


The existing text could imply the former as well as the latter possibility.


-Arle


On 8/10/10 10:51 AM, sic scripsit Yves Savourel: 

Requirement #12: (was #10, #11, and #12)