Hi all,
continued feedback to the questionnaire
Q25.
Change Tracking Module 2.1 [Change Tracking Module 2.0 was deprecated]
Q58.
shouldn't use radio buttons as multiple selections desirable, should use checkbox(es)
But id, type, and translate are all from core (xlf) so shouldn't be re-asked here.
The only new attribute specific for the ITS Tools Annotation is its:annotatorsRef
So in the end it should be just one checkbox for that attribute
Q60
same as Q58
Should have just one checkbox for its:allowedCharacters
Q62
same as Q58 and Q60
Should have just one checkbox for itsm:domains
Q64
shouldn't use radio buttons as multiple selections desirable, should use checkbox(es)
Just two checkboxes:
its:localeFilterList
its:localeFilterType
Q66
Again should have just checkboxes for the its: attributes and not for core
Q68
Again should have just checkboxes for the its: attributes and not for core
Q69
Analyis -> Analysis
Q70
Again should have just checkboxes for the its: attributes and not for core
Q71-Q73 should be removed
Maybe replace with
Q71
Can your tool roundtrip ITS Localization Note data using XLIFF Core Note and XLIFF Core Comment Annotation
Q74
Does your tool support the Terminology data category?
should beDoes your tool FULLY support the Terminology data category?
Q75
There should be checkboxes just for the its: attributes
+ there also needs to be a checkox for
type="its:term-no"
[not just for the core type unspecified]
Q77
Just one checkbox for
itsm:lang
Q79
Checkboxes just for the its: attributes
Q81
Checkboxes just for the its: attributes
This is now my complete feedback
When all fixed, the SOU questionnaire will be ready to launch
Cheers dF
Dr. David Filip
===========
OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair
OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer
Spokes Research Fellow
ADAPT Centre
KDEG, Trinity College Dublin
Mobile: +420-777-218-122
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:01 PM, David Filip <> wrote:
Lucía, all,
finally finding some time to review this
Links in Q1
should be changed to cs01 links
E.g.
Date TBD by now
http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/cs01/xliff-core-v2.1-cs01.html
The latest link should be
http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/xliff-core-v2.1.html
3. Are you an OASIS member?
should be
3. Are you an OASIS member or an employee of an OASIS member organization?
Q4
second line should be
I am an Individual member or an associated member
Chet clarified that asscociated members are not considered pripreps. For both Individual and Associated members it is sufficient to receive the statement from them individually
11. Contact Email (to be used only to obtain clarification about your answers, not for publication)
should be
11. Contact Email (to be used only to obtain clarification about your answers IF NECESSARY, not for publication)
Q15 should use another example, as sdlxliff is an XLIFF 1.2 extension
@Bryan, @Yves do you want to name your extended namespace examples?
More comments will follow tomorrow
Cheers
dF
Dr. David Filip
===========
OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair
OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer
Spokes Research Fellow
ADAPT Centre
KDEG, Trinity College Dublin
Mobile: +420-777-218-122
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Lucia Morado Vazquez <> wrote:
Dear all,
Following the suggestions given during yesterday’s meeting, I have included the questions on the ITS module to the SOU questionnaire:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/souxliff21
Please let me know if you have any further suggestions/feedback on the questionnaire.
Best,
Lucia
De : [mailto:]
De la part de Lucia Morado Vazquez
Envoyé : mardi 20 décembre 2016 16:31
À :
Objet : [xliff] XLIFF SOU Questionnaire Draft
Dear all,
Here is the link to the new questionnaire (draft) to collect the SOU of the new version.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/souxliff21
I have modified the one we used for 2.0 to adapt it to the new spec.
On the first page, there are two elements in red that need to be updated.
For the ITS module, I could not think of an effective and simple way of adding additional questions to gather more information than the general support of the module, if you can think of any method to do it (without overcomplicating the
questionnaire) please let me know.
Let me know if you have any suggestion/remark on the questionnaire itself.
Best,
Lucía
