Hi all,
It seems that most of us are more or less comfortable with having an extra layer for unsegmented, just extracted.. Same as Yves I believe that the unsegmented should be obligatory. But people like Andrzej and Rodolfo may have valid reasons for doing it the other way round..[although I agree with Asgeir and Yves that Andrzej can have more robust relationship with xml:tm in the new proposed setting]
I believe that we do not get any further without some solid use case analysis
IMHO we need to figure out rather combinatorically what is the hierarchical relationship of
<group>
<extr-text>
<trans-unit>
Which of them belong to XLIFF 2.0 core and how each of the possible combinations captures various content lifecycle scenarios
I suggest to not continue this thread until the f-t-f and Symposium in Limerick.
I believe that supporting use cases should be presented there..
Rgds
dF
David Filip
Director, Research
==============================
www.moraviaworldwide.com
Phone: + 420-545-552-203
Fax: + 420-545-552-233
Mobile: + 420-731-492244
E-mail:
==============================
Děkujeme, že zvažujete dopad tisku emailů na životní prostředí./ Thank you for considering the environmental impact of printing emails.
-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 2:23 PM
To: 'xliff'
Subject: RE: [xliff] Simplified XLIFF element tree
Hi Rodolfo, all,
>> It seems it would be simpler to have one element for each extracted
>> unit, and the un/segmented information inside that element: Any type
>> of parser can access all of it at once, no need for linking or other
>> extra mechanism; finding/fixing/editing files is easier; etc.
>
>
> Please keep unsegmented information separate from translatable segments.
> Like Andrzej, I don't plan to put unsegmented text in my XLIFF files.
> A common parent for unsegmented/segmented would be annoying unless it
> is optional.
>
> Unsegmented text should be optional, as it is not needed for translating
> a segmented XLIFF. Unsegmented text should not be in the core XLIFF
> module, it should live in a separate optional namespace.
Having the un-segmented text not part of the core and living in a separate optional namespace is a strange idea.
The first goal of XLIFF is to represent extracted text, not segmented extracted text.
The representation of the segmentation is what should be optional.
Cheers,
-ys
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
