Hi David,
This is a fair point. I’d be interested in hearing from tool providers about their preference here also.
I see two scenarios that are relevant here:
1.
Global (language neutral) rules: these rules are the
most common here at Microsoft and do not differentiate per-language (e.g. formatting rules). Therefore, rules of this nature would not require/benefit from normalization
2.
Language-specific rules: these rules, by default, may
benefit from normalization and indeed would help reduce false positives if present
In my thinking, keeping “none” as default keeps the module simple and avoids unnecessary overhead by the processing agent when not required. If the XLIFF creator
is implementing language-specific rules, then they have an onus to specify their preferred normalization approach.
If we can surmise the likely prevalence of scenario 1 vs. scenario 2, that may also indicate the likely best default setting here.
Other feedback/thoughts appreciated.
Thanks,
Kevin.
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:08 PM
To: Helena S Chapman
Cc: Schurig, Joachim; Ryan King; ; Yves Savourel
Subject: Re: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Guys, after a brief spotcheck I just forwarded Asanka's minutes from Tuesday to the list.
While there was no formal conclusion the discussion tended to inclusion of normalization types along the lines of the size restriction module.
I think there was no doubt that we should provide a vehicle for conveying the normalization type required.
There did not seem to be a clear consensus on the default value though. I personally think that the default should NOT be "none". This option for default seems vague and obscure to me.. It lets the processor guess based on tribal knowledge
what they should do not to produce tons of false positives. I thought that we wanted to be naive implementer friendly.. :-)
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:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Helena S Chapman <> wrote:
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
