[OASIS Issue Tracker] (XLIFF-28) Comments in the draft

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=65428#comment-65428 ] 

Yves Savourel commented on XLIFF-28:
------------------------------------

In section "5.9.12.2 annotatorsRef" we had the in-document comment: "COMMENT: THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES FOR ANNOTATORS REF IS THE NAMESPACE. WE SHOULD NOT ADD MORE CONSTRAINT DESCRIPTIONS AND TERMINOLOGY, E.G: "TRIPLES", AND JUST REFER TO THE ITS SPEC.", along with others saying pretty much the same thing: instead of setting constraints in the XLIFF spec we should just point to the ITS spec.

None of this has been implemented: we still have many lines of descriptions and constraints that are ITS specific.We still have table 9 (along with a comment), etc.

I still don't understand why we need to put these descriptions in the XLIFF spec. For example, for xml:lang we just point to the xml:lang value description (we say: "A language code as described in [BCP 47]."), we don't re-write BCP-47. IMO it should be the same for the ITS values.

> Comments in the draft
> ---------------------
>
>                 Key: XLIFF-28
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-28
>             Project: OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: ITS Module
>    Affects Versions: 2.1_csprd02
>         Environment: http://markmail.org/thread/jzdqfm5c6hgofjbu
>            Reporter: Yves Savourel
>            Assignee: David Filip
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: Proposed, editorial, work_required
>             Fix For: 2.1_csprd03
>
>
> There are quite a few (more than a dozen) embedded comments in this latest
> draft:
> e.g: "COMMENT: MAKE CLEAR THAT THERE ARE TWO HANDLINGS, ONE IS NOT TO REPRESENT
> THE DATA CATEGORY, THE OTHER IS IN THE MODULE. THE
> EXTRACTION IS FOR ITS PROCESSORS GENERATING XLIFF, THE DIRECT REPRESENTATION IS
> FOR XLIFF PROCESSORS."
> Some, like the one above, seem to indicate that there are still relatively
> important parts of the text that needs to be
> edited/added/etc.
> I assume this means there will be a csprd03 regardless of the disposition of the
> comments for csprd02. Is that correct?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)