Borrowing from the precedent set by the size restriction module then would be the right thing to do. We could have an additional attribute called normalization
on the <rule> element:
normalization
This attribute specifies the normalization to apply when validating a rule. Only the normalization forms C and D as specified by the Unicode Consortium are
supported, see Unicode Standard Annex #15 [http://unicode.org/reports/tr15/].
Value description:
normalization to apply
none No normalization should be done
nfc Normalization Form C should be used
nfd Normalization Form D should be used
Default value: "none"
Used in: <rule>.
Either setting the attribute to none, or the absence of attribute would mean that the processing agent would need to decide how to handle normalization. Does
that work for everyone?
Thanks,
Ryan
From: Helena S Chapman [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:45 AM
To: Schurig, Joachim
Cc: Ryan King; ; Yves Savourel
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
You summarized correctly of my own recollection of the discussion.
From: "Schurig, Joachim" <>
To: Ryan King <>, Helena S Chapman/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: "" <>,
Yves Savourel <>
Date: 03/20/2013 07:29 PM
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Hi Ryan,
while yours was my initial position as well, I do not think that it was the outcome of the discussion in the TC. We do have already mention of the normalization approach in the
size restriction module, so it would make sense to include it here, too, and I think this was the conclusion on the Tuesday call. You could leave the default to “none” and declare that this would leave it to the processing agent how to deal with the situation,
but if any of “nfd” or “nfc” values are set it should lead to more specific behavior. Could this be an acceptable solution to all parties?
Cheers,
Joachim
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Ryan King
Sent: Mittwoch, 20. März 2013 17:58
To: Helena S Chapman
Cc: ; Yves Savourel
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Yes, Helena, thanks for checking with me that. We did discuss it and feel that the processing agent should be responsible for normalization of text and so we will explicitly state that in the
module.
Thanks,
Ryan
Sent from my Windows Phone
From:
Helena S Chapman
Sent: 3/20/2013 4:43 AM
To: Ryan King
Cc: ; Yves Savourel
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Did Kevin convey the comments about normalization to you? How do we expect to deal with that in the spec?
From: Ryan King <>
To: Yves Savourel <>, "" <>
Date: 03/20/2013 02:41 AM
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Sent by: <>
Hi Yves, all,
We suggest that for mustLoc, we enclose the source and replacement target values in parenthesis, like so: mustLoc="(World) (Welt)"
If for any reason, a parenthesis is required to be translated, as a brace for example, we could escape it like so: mustLoc="(\(World\)) ({Welt})"
Since we are generalizing the dblSpace to occurrences, then we could do something similar there as well: occurrences="(|) (3)"
For example, where 3 pipes need to occur in the target for whatever reason.
Further comments or suggestions welcome.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan King
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:59 PM
To: 'Yves Savourel';
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Thanks Yves for the feedback. All valid and good comments, which we will incorporate into the spec. As for the question on the mustLoc separator, Kevin and I are discussing it and suggest something shortly.
Thanks,
ryan
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:01 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Hi Ryan, all,
Some feedback on the Validation proposal (nothing major, just possible suggestions):
-- strbegins and strEnds attributes:
Maybe names such as startsWith and endsWith may be a bit more descriptive of the function?
-- dblSpace:
This seems to be a very specific check. Maybe it can be generalized a bit without making it very different? For example, instead of dblSpace="3" we could do occurrence=" |3" (or a better name than 'occurrence'). This would allow to check for more than double
spaces.
-- mustLoc:
How do you represent the '|' if it needs to be in the left part of the value?
-- existsInSource, disabled:
So far I think XLIFF is using yes|no for Boolean rather than true|false. Maybe we could be consistent?
cheers,
-yves
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
