Re: [xliff] Our review

From
Dr. David Filip <>
Date
2013-04-12T20:21:18+00:00
ID
CANw5LKn0MZKGzvkKFUCBYws77QtV0FK=
Thread
Re: [xliff] Our review
Thanks, Jung, Victor,

answers inline..

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 Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Jung Nicholas Ryoo <> wrote:

  

    
  
  

    Hi all,

      

      Victor and I reviewed the latest revision of XLIFF specification
      document. We are happy for most of the development, so we will
      reply soon with most probably the option 1 or the new 5 if the

two
      are ever different.

There is a subtle difference.. :-)

1 states roughly: I have no issues with the draft at all

5 states roughly: I might be aware of minor issues here and there, still I think the draft is mature enough to go the next step..

The goal is to identify reasons for possible answers 2-4 to be able to handle dissent on critical matters in a timely manner..

 

      

      Here are a few questions before that.

      

      1) Section 2.8 Segmentation still has incomplete processing
      requirements. In fact, the PR for re-segmentation could be
      sophisticated. I wonder if this has been lost for a while.

I agree this can be complex. I asked Fredrik and Yves for input here a couple of days ago..

I think that it is OK to have a strawman here if someone submits it by Monday, I can implement and print on time for the meeting

Or leave it openly unspecified in the CSPRD, it is a contentious matter where it might be prudent to have broader input..

Still I'd prefer to go for it with a strawman in place, if Jung, Yves, or Fredrik, (or someone I miss) will submit one..

      

      2) Appendix B: Translation Candidate Module:  

         According to the schema, the value of score related attributes
      is ranged from 0.0 to 100.0. Will this restrict us from using more
      detailed precisions (e.g.: 94.98)?  Our quality system always
      produce two decimal places.

I agree with Yves, it is specified as decimal, it should be a matter of a simple schema fix..

    
3) Section H: Size Restriction Module

        It is very difficult to understand this module. Why should this
      size restriction module look so complicated?

    

    
  Generally storage restriction hasn't been critical to us. We
      are more about restricting the number of characters to avoid any
      issues on GUI.

        The number of characters that can be allowed for the same width
      of GUI can be different per language. 

    

    
  question) Can somebody help me on how to restrict the
      translation to less than or equal to 20 characters? 

I leave this with Fredrik 

    

    
4)  Section H.1.5.2: "sizesare" => "sizes are"

I leave this with Fredrik 

    

    
Thanks

      Jung