I have a related question brought on by this statement:
>>
In particular, it should be made clear that mda MUST NOT be misused for carrying matches or glossary entries.
At Microsoft, we have *extensive* terminology data that goes beyond simple Term | Translation | Definition. We have things like part-of-speech, usage notes,
product version, etc. If we cannot carry all of our glossary information together in the Metadata module currently, then perhaps we could add it to the Glossary module so we can. After all, I can embed <mda:metadata> in the <matches> module, why not the <glossary>
module as well?
ryan
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:21 AM
To: ;
Subject: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #04 - No PRs in metadata module
Dear Bryan, [I am quite sure that you are the owner although I cannot lookup the wiki right now :-)]
If there are no PRs, no one will be ever able to delete the module data. This is just the gravest consequence.
Other than that, PRs (and definitions as needed) should be provided that could support a 'naive implementer', i.e. someone without the
L10n tribal knowledge. Most importantly the module specification should state in unambiguous terms that the metadata module (as a native extensibility mechanism) MUST not compete for functionality with any features defined in the current version of core or
modules.
In particular, it should be made clear that mda MUST NOT be misused for carrying matches or glossary entries.
Other issues with this module:
[Please start separate threads if you want to discuss the minor issues..]
04.01)
type is a required attribute of <meta> but the spec (neither core nor module) does not contain the definition and or standard values for
type IN metadata. (Only values for inlines are specified in core)
Cheers
dF
Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto:
