Thanks Yves, see my inline to your inline. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you document and get this added to the specification. Do you feel we need to have a roll call vote on these items in the next TC call?
Thanks,
Ryan
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:48 PM
To: Ryan King;
Subject: RE: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals
Hi Ryan, all,
Sorry for the delay: I'm just swamped and can't find the time to read emails anymore.
> 1. Be able to specify optional custom values for match type in
> <mtc:matches>
I suppose some mechanism similar to the subType we're using in inline codes and other places could allow for custom values while making sure a top-level category is also declared.
Since we are discussing values for match type: I'm still not convinced that the latest list makes sense:
am - Assembled Match
ebm - Example-based Machine Translation
idm - ID-based Match
ice - In-Context Exact Match
mt - Machine Translation
tm - Translation Memory Match
- 'Example-based Machine Translation' should not be there IMO: it's just MT, what type of MT is not relevant (but could be a candidate for the subtype)
- 'In-Context Exact Match' IMO should be 'in-context' only: the fact that's an exact one is captured in the similarity (and it could be an in-context fuzzy too).
[ryanki] I think this makes sense. For example, there's no reason each of these couldn't be valid (note ic instead of ice):
<match id=”1” similarity=”100.0” type=”ic/xlf:exact”>
<match id=”1” similarity=”100.0” type=”mt/xlf:exact”>
<match id=”1” similarity=”100.0” type=”tm/xlf:exact”>
<match id=”1” similarity=”75.0” type=”ic/xlf:fuzzy”>
<match id=”1” similarity=”75.0” type=”mt/xlf:fuzzy”>
<match id=”1” similarity=”75.0” type=”tm/xlf:fuzzy”>
> 2. Support Reference Language in <mtc:matches> • Allow zero, one or
> more <mtc:matches> at each extension point, because you might have
> both recycling and reference language data.
I assume you mean: allow more than one <mtc:matches> where we currently allow one? Not in *all* extensions point. right?
[ryanki] exactement :)
> • Add an optional attribute reference=”yes|no” with no as default.
> Additionally, PR for a “reference match” would be to allow an xml:lang
> on the target different from the document and allow the <source> not
> to be present as it would be redundant information with the core
> <source>, e.g. Spanish reference for Quechua might look like this:
- reference='yes\no' and allowing a different language for xml:lang in those with reference='yes' seems ok to me.
- source not being present... I don't know. If we do that for those 'matches' why not for the normalmatches as well? If the source is the same.
I think we mandated the source originally that's to simplify processing: testing for the presence of not of the source may be cumbersome for some processors (XSLT maybe?).
[ryanki] in principle, we could carry around the redundant <source> the only side effect really being bloat to the XLIFF (but metadata will do that anyway...) I suggested it this way simply because <alt-trans> the previous element used for reference language in 1.2, does not require <source>, so this was for parity.
We would need to update the definition of what a "match" is as well.
hope this helps,
-ys
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
