Title:
1) Bryan is talking about trans-units that are not to be
translatable - i.e.translate=no
Should we use a state name that
reflects this? - for example: state =
not_translatable
2) whatever state name we agree on, should we say in
the spec that this is the correct state to use for all non-translatable
trans-units?
Mat
----- Original Message -----
From:
John Reid
To:
;
; < ; ;
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 5:53
PM
Subject: [xliff] Re: a case for
"finished" as a valid value for state
I have no problem with this. However, it might be good to
consolidate the two concepts of "finished" and "signed-off" so that 1 state
says if work on a trans-unit is completed. I have no other suggestion for
this, though.
>>> <>
4/8/03 10:48:36 AM >>>
[I
tried again to send this to the list, but it bounced back. Could one of
you please post this on my behalf? I'll try (again) to fix my email
account with OASIS, thanks]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although "finished" is described as a "workflow state" in the current
specification, I propose that "finished" should remain a pre-defined value for
state.
In my XLIFF application, the state of "translated" is suitable for targets
that have been translated. The state of "signed-off" could indicate a definite
reviewed/completion status. But I have targets that are not candidates for
translation, and have not been "translated," and are not yet "signed-off," but
are indeed "finished."
The state of finished is not accurately described by any of the other
values in the list, from my point of view.
I'm not passionate about this, but I thought I'd pass along my
thoughts.
Thanks,
Bryan
