Hi Rodolfo,
>I
think we need to modify current specs and clarify the three different "ref"
attributes.
Yes, I agree.
> 1)
if the <source> in <mtc:match> matches the whole <source>
of a <segment>, "ref" should point to the "id"
of that <segment>
I think we should
be careful about this. As far as I know, examples found online and the
book "A Practical Guide to XLIFF 2.0" (you're co-author!) use
<mrk> to annotate entire source segment, and <mtc:match> refers
to the <mrk> annotation. I could not find any examples pointing to
segment element except broken example (missing #) in XLIFF 2.x spec. So,
I suspect someone who uses the translation candidate module assume <mrk>
annotation must be used. I can imagine some implementators may prefer to
use <mrk> annotation for this purpose. I think we probably just state
that pointing to segment is equivalent to pointing <mrk> element
enclosing entire <source> element value in the segment, and avoid
"should point to the "id" of that <segment>".
> 2)
If the <source> in <mtc:match> matches a fragment in the <source>
of a <segment>, "ref" should point to the "id"
of the <mrk> or <pc> element that encloses the matched text.
I personally don't
like to allow <pc> here. I feel it's just not practical, and introducing
extra complexity. If we allow <pc>, we may also allow any kind of
<mrk>, not limited to type="mtc:match".
>I'm
ignoring the case where the <source> of <mtc:macth> points
to the whole content or a fragment of <target> in <segment>.
I don't think this should be allowed but there may be some use cases.
Right. I don't
think many people including me to <mtc:match> pointing to a fragment
of target segment. But I can imagine legitimate use case - For example,
if a tentative translation is provided, and the translation is already
used for different source text in the past, then translator may change
translation to distinguish one from another. In general, I agree that this
use case is practically ignorable.
-Yoshito
