Typos in the spec draft

Hello,

I have reviewed the latest version of our

specification draft (the core section only so far).

Here are some typos and other minor issues I have found:

Page

Type of issue

Issue

Proposal

7 and others

Inconsistency in capitalization

The term “XLIFF Document” or “XLIFF Documents” is sometimes capitalised and sometimes it is not.

Other terms with the same issue:

“User Interface”.

“Version”

“Undefined” (after “Default value:”)

“Translation”. See for example in “XLIFF is a bilingual document format designed for containing text that needs
Translation, its corresponding

translations and auxiliary
 data that makes the Translation process possible.”

Be consistent with the use of the capital letters.

11

Update?

“Conformant XLIFF Documents MUST be valid instances of the official Core XML Schema

(https://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.2/wd/schemas/xliff_core_2.0.xsd)...”

Change url?

11

Missing info?

“Conformant applications are REQUIRED to support
XLIFF 2.1.”

 

“Conformant applications are REQUIRED to support
XLIFF 2.0 and 2.1”

18

Typo?

“Modifiers and Enrichers processing an XLIFF Document that contains a <skeleton> element MUST

NOT change that element, its attributes,
or its content.”

“Modifiers and Enrichers processing an XLIFF Document that contains a <skeleton> element MUST

NOT change that element, its attributes,
nor its content.”

24, 38, 162

Typo (two dots instead of one)

“See also discussion in the ITS Module section on representing translatability

inline..”

The same issue can be found in pages
38 and 162.

“See also discussion in the ITS Module section on representing translatability inline.”

24, 35, 36, 54, 56

Missing entity in the example

<data id="d2">&lt;br/></data>

 

The same issue can be found in pages in other examples, e.g., pages 54, 56, 57, 58,

<data id="d2">&lt;br/&gt;</data>

30

Typo

“The attributes defined in XLIFF 2.0 are:”

“The attributes defined in XLIFF 2.2 are:”

Several pages

Consistency

When introducing the type of value “NMTOKEN”, we can find “Value description: An
[XML Schema Datatypes] NMTOKEN” or just “NMTOKEN” in the spec.

Use one option consistently.

38

Include extended version in the definition

“href - a pointer to the location…”

“hyperlink reference – a pointer to the location…”

43, 112, 144

Typo

“it's
value MUST be set to initial if the element doesn't have a”

 

“…and 
it's corresponding end marker <em startRef="1"/>.”

 

“it can hide the nature of the placeholder and
it's linguistic relationship ”

“its
value MUST be set to initial if the element doesn't have a”

 

“…and
its corresponding end marker <em startRef="1"/>.”

 

“it can hide the nature of the placeholder and
it's linguistic relationship ”

46-47

Missing information

Some items seem to be missing in the “type” attribute section, for example: “When used in
, , or :”

 

47

Update

“The attributes from XML namespace used in XLIFF 2.0 are: “

“The attributes from XML namespace used in XLIFF 2.2 are: “

70

Update

“XLIFF 2.0 offers two mechanisms for storing”

“XLIFF 2.2 offers two mechanisms for storing”

 

Other changes/ideas that can be implemented in the spec to make it easier to read/follow:

Include a legend/number to all the examples so we can (cross) reference them in the spec. This could also allow to save some space in the spec as some examples are
 repeated (see, for example, examples in dataRefEnd and dataRefStart).

In the definitions of the inline elements, provide their expanded version of the abbreviations used in the names of the inline elements so their meaning becomes
 more transparent. We could use, for example, the values included in the first column of table 1 in page 51.

Simplify the definition of the element “unit”, the current definition is: “Static container for a dynamic structure of elements holding the extracted translatable
 source text, aligned with the Translated text.”.

 

Add an example in source and/or target elements.

 

 

Best,

 

Lucía