RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - RC5

Hi 
all,

 

That 
part in the 1.0 specification about rid being already described as links 
for <bx/> and <ex/> escaped me since I was looking at 
<bpt>/<ept> and assumed <bx/> and <ex/> would be the 
same.

 

So I 
guess, we should go with the path (1) or (2). And we would need to update the 
text for <bpt>/<ept> as well.

 

I 
still have never run into a real case where overlapping codes were allowed, but 
I guess we should make provision for it. It seems a big descripency between the 
frequence of the problem and the burden of the solution on the other 
cases.

 

cheers,

-yves

 

 

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Domeny 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Thu, May 08, 2003 8:02 
  AM
To: 
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: 
  XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - RC5

  
All,

  
 

  
The 
  original problem with the statement "the paired codes, <bx/>+<ex/> and 
  <bpt>+<ept>, should be related via the rid attribute" is that it is vague. It 
  does not describe HOW they are related, only that the 'rid' attribute is used 
  in some way. From John's example it is clear that they are related by setting 
  the two 'rid' attributes to the same value. The alternative is to set the 
  'rid' value to match the 'id' value of the corresponding tag. I yield to those 
  on the TC longer than I to determine the original indent on how to use 'id' 
  and 'rid'. The most important issue here is to make it very clear how to 
  relate the paired tags. Including an example, such as John's, is essential to 
  understanding.

  
 

  
The 
  'rid' attribute SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
  required for <bx>, <ex>, 
  <bpt>, and <ept> in XLIFF 1.0 because it is needed to refer 
  to the matching begin/end tag. This 
  change, however, is not fully 
  compatible with XLIFF 1.0 because some documents may not have the 'rid' 
  attribute, but I do not know how the matching pairs would be identified. Therefore, the XLIFF 1.1 schema cannot enforce 'rid' 
  without causing compatibility problems with older XLIFF 1.0 documents. I do 
  not feel it is necessary to enforce the 'rid' attribute. If the specification 
  is unambiguous, people will properly apply the 'id' and 'rid' 
  attributes.

  
 

  
The remaining 
  question is "Can the paired tags be matched by 'id' without using 'rid'?". In 
  my opinion, the answer should be "No". Providing two ways to do the same thing 
  causes the user to make an arbitrary decision. However, I realize that 
  some may already use 'id' instead of 'rid' because 'rid' is optional. Perhaps 
  someone with more experience can offer more 
  information.

  
 

  
In summary, here are 
  the three choices on how to relate paired 
  tags:

  
 

  
(1) 'rid' matches 
  'id' ... <bx id="b1" rid="e1"/> ... <ex id="e1" 
  rid="b1"/>

  
 

  
(2) 'rid' matches 
  'rid' ... <bx rid="1"/> ... <ex 
  rid="1"/>

  
 

  
(3) 'id' matches 
  'id' ... <bx id="1"/> ... <ex 
  id="1"/>

  
 

  
Comments:

  
 

  
This is the XLIFF 
  1.0 description for the 'id' and 'rid' 
  attributes:

  
"The 
  id attribute is used in many 
  elements, as a unique reference to the original corresponding code data or 
  format for the given element."

  
"The 
  rid attribute is used to link 
  different elements that are 
  related."

  
 

  
The XLIFF 1.0 
  description for <bx/> adds:

  
"These paired elements are 
  related via their rid 
  attributes."

  
 

  
It seems that 
  the 'id' attribute was never intended to be used to match pairs, but rather 
  the 'rid' attribute was included for that purpose. Therefore, choice (3) would 
  be disqualified (although this was the verbal consensus at the last conference 
  call). John's concerns are addressed by either choice (1) or choice (2). 
  Choice (1) is better from a strict XML point of view because the 'id' 
  attribute identifies an element and the 'rid' refers to a different element. 
  In a DTD or schema, the 'id' attribute would be type ID and 'rid' would be 
  REFID. The DTD would then enforce that 'rid' actually refers to an existing 
  element. However, the XLIFF 1.0 DTD does not define 'id' or 'rid' in this way, 
  and, in fact, 'id' does not even need to be unique. Choice (2) is less complex 
  and easier to implement than choice (1) given that 'id' may not be 
  unique.

  
 

  
Given this 
  reasoning, I recommend that the specification describe the use of 'rid' in 
  <bx>, <ex>, <bpt>, and <ept> as shown in choice (2), 
  which is the same as John's recommendation and Mark's agreement. Although it 
  would be nice to make 'rid' required, it is not essential. More important 
  would be a way to enforce that the 'rid' values match correctly, that is, a 
  <bx rid> matches with exactly one <ex rid>. I do not know if this 
  is possible with W3C XML Schema.

  
Regards,

Doug Domeny
Software Analyst

Ektron, 
  Inc.
+1 603 594-0249 x212
http://www.ektron.com

  
    
-----Original Message-----
From: David Pooley 
    [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:29 
    AM
To: 
Subject: RE: [xliff] 
    Re: XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - RC5

    
I'm not 
    comfortable with this for the reasons outlined 
    below.

    
 

    
As I 
    understand it, <bx/> is a shortened way of writing 
    <bpt></bpt> and <ex/> is a shortened way of writing 
    <ept></ept>. Quite why we need these extra tags (saving 
    six characters per occurrence) is a little bit beyond me to start with. 
    However, <bpt> and <ept> are taken from the TMX 
    format where there is an attribute, "i" which links them together. This is a 
    required attribute in these tags.

    
 

    
In the specification, <bx> and <ex> as 
    described as "begin paired placeholder" and "end 
    paired placeholder" respectively. To me, this 
    means that each <bx/> must have a corresponding 
    <ex> and vice-versa. If this is the case then there must be a 
    mandatory attribute that links them together. However, under John's proposal, we are suggesting that the 
    <bx/> and <ex/> tags should be linked via a non-mandatory 
    attribute. We're are also suggesting linking them together using an 
    attribute which has a vague description and could be used for a variety of 
    purposes (including using it as a lookup device in the skeleton file), some 
    of which are references outside of the 
    <trans-unit>.

    
 

    
Either 
    the rid 
    becomes mandatory for <bx/>, <ex/>, <bpt> and <ept> 
    (and its wording is changed to reflect its new status) or we agree to use 
    the id attribute. With John's example, it's still possible 
    to have the rid as optional and use it to reference in to the 
    skeleton:

    
 

    
Original

    
{This is 
    translatable text which is {/weight=+w1}bold, {/weight=+w3} italic and 
    bold{/weight=-w1}, and 
    italic.{/weight=-w3}} 

    
Skeleton
{#TU id=18# 
  
    #CODE rid=19#{/weight=-w1} 
  #CODE rid=20#{/weight=+w3} 
  
    #CODE rid=21#{/weight=-w1} 
  #CODE rid=22#{//weight=-w3} 
} 
    

    
XLIFF

    
<trans-unit id="18"> 
  
    <source>This is translatable text which is <bx id="1" 
    rid="19"/>bold, <bx id="2" rid="20"/>italic and bold<ex id="1" 
    rid="21"/>, and italic<ex id="2" rid="22"/>.</source> 
    
</trans-unit> 

    
 

    
David Pooley

    

    
Software 
    Architect

    
SDL 
    International

    
 

    
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Levins 
    [mailto:]
Sent: 08 May 2003 
    10:21
To: 
Cc: 
    
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.1 
    Specification Working Draft 14 - RC5

Hi John, 

I fully agree with your mail, it describes the usage we originally 
    came up with, which in essence means that 'id' attributes are for the 
    general purpose of linking information to a skeletal data while 'rid' 
    attributes are used to refer related information within an XLIFF 
    document. 

Regards,

Mark 
    Levins 
    
      
      

        IBM Software 
          Group,
Dublin Software Laboratory,
Airways Industrial 
          Estate,
Cloghran,
Dublin 17,
Ireland. 
          
        Phone: +353 1 704 
          6676
IBM Tie Line 166676 
    

    
      
      

        "John Reid" 
          <> 
          
07/05/2003 23:36 

        
          
            
            

              
                
To

              <>, "<", 
                <> 
            

              
                
cc

              
            

              
                
Subject

              RE: [xliff] Re: 
                XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - 
            RC5

          
            
            

              
              

Hi Doug, Yves, et al, 
  
Doug Domeny wrote: 
>Replace "These paired 
    elements are related via their rid attributes" (occurs
>5 times) 
    with: 
> 
>These paired 
    elements are matched by setting their id attributes to the 
    same
>value. For example, <bx id="34"/> ... <ex 
    id="34"/> 
I think we are imposing a method on the 
    XLIFF filters and a format on the skeletons with this change. Suppose we 
    have a file format with the following text: 
  
{This is translatable text which is 
    {/weight=+w1}bold, {/weight=+w3} italic and bold{/weight=-w1}, and 
    italic.{/weight=-w3}} 
  
Here the codes are allowed to overlap. I've used bold and italic for 
    simplicity but this could be complicated with more complex codes. The filter 
    assigns each code a separate id because without a lookup table of some sort 
    the filter doesn't know that /weight=+w1 means 'bold'. It does recognize 
    that weight=+w1 and weight=-w1 are paired. Also, the developer of the filter 
    did not want to regenerate codes that could as easily be stored. Thus, the 
    skeleton for this text may look as follows: 
  
{#TU id=18# 
  #CODE id=19#{/weight=-w1} 
  #CODE 
    id=20#{/weight=+w3} 
  #CODE 
    id=21#{/weight=-w1} 
  #CODE 
    id=22#{//weight=-w3} 
} 
  
The <trans-unit> appears as 
    follows: 
  
<trans-unit id = "18"> 
  
    <source>This is translatable text which is <bx id="19" 
    rid="1"/>bold, <bx id="20" rid="2"/>italic and bold<ex id="21" 
    rid="1"/>, and italic<ex id="22" rid="2"/>. 
  </source> 
</trans-unit> 
  
Thus, the id attribute relates the codes in the skeleton to the 
    inline elements in the XLIFF. The rid attribute relates the paired codes to 
    each other. 
  
If the id 
    must match between the the paired codes, the skeleton wouldn't store the end 
    codes and the postprocessor must generate those. 
  
This is why I think that the paired 
    codes, <bx/>+<ex/> and <bpt>+<ept>, should be 
    related via the rid attribute. This gives the greatest freedom to the filter 
    writers. 
  
--john 

**********************************************************************
This 
    email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended 
    solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are 
    addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the 
    system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message 
    has been swept 
for the presence of computer 
    viruses.

**********************************************************************