-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Incorrect ITS in XLIFF files #2
Comments
I corrected the locqualityissue and storage size xliff files issues. But the term issue I think is more XLIFF/ITS recommendation question as I believe what is there currently is correct according to the current recommendation. I have emailed the group though and you are cc'd on the email |
Thanks. The current XLIFF 1.2 mapping only has |
Hi Nathan,
I've pushed updated files today that reflect better the current mapping. Note that those files are generated from source examples that do not really have their ITS information defined (for example not all elements that should be are defined as withinText='yes', etc.), which explains some of the strange output we are getting sometimes. for its:termInfo: I think we are missing itsxlf:termInfo in the mapping, and also a note saying that when converting its:termInfoRef to itsxlf:termInfoRef, the value of the reference may have to be changed to an IRI accessible from the output. Actually, another way would be to put the pointed content in itsxlf:termInfo, but that probably wouldn't work very well in many cases.
It's generated with Tikal (http://www.opentag.com/okapi/wiki/index.php?title=Tikal), the latest snapshot distribution has the latest implementation of the mapping (at least what I can manage to implement). Cheers, |
Thanks. I was getting confused because all of the other its:* attributes On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ysavourel notifications@github.com wrote:
|
Thanks, Nathan. Could you close this issue and (if needed) add your shortcoming of the ITS spec to |
Sure. I'll probably add everything I've found during the course of the WICS On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Felix Sasaki notifications@github.comwrote:
|
I just pulled the latest, and I still see the same problem with all of the locqualityissue files. I don't believe the mapping has been updated in any way- it doesn't mention locQualityIssueProfile[Ref], so I think the ITS-namespaced attribute should just be what is in the ITS spec, especially since it's a set pattern that anything ending in I also found something else- in locnote[3,4,8,9]xml.xml.xlf, there are |
Hi Nathan,
Good catch: the 'Ref' is missing: that is likely a bug. It should be there. As you say: we just use the same ITS attributes for LQI in XLIFF. I'll fix that in our writer and re-generate the examples (it may take a few days).
We haven't really finished the discussion on how to work with locNoteRef (as you can see it's still listed as an issue in the mapping).
The with the REF: prefix pre-date ITS 2.0 and the mapping. That was how our tools were trying to map a ITS 1.0 loc-note reference using the XLIFF . Thoughts? |
Yes, I did notice the mapping note on |
The advantage of using XLIFF is that XLIFF processor will be able to use it even if they don’t support ITS. Maybe the solution then is to use when the Locnote is not a reference, and use the ITS markup when it is a reference. -ys From: garfieldnate [mailto:notifications@github.com] Yes, I did notice the mapping note on locNoteRef. Whatever happens, though, I think it will be better to have separate places to put locNote and locNoteRef. Using special text content to differentiate two categories has the risk of hitting a corner case. Someday, someone, somewhere might begin their actual locNote with REF:, and they will be puzzled why it keeps being rendered as a locNoteRef. Or they'll figure it out pretty quickly, and you'll get an email asking how to begin a locNote with REF:. — |
Yes, exactly what I was thinking. |
I was just working with all of the XLIFF files in the xlfsamples directories, and found some incorrect-looking ITS markup.
locqualityissue[3,4,5,9,10,11,12,13]xml.xml.xlf- these each have
its:locQualityIssueProfile
. It should beits:locQualityIssueProfileRef
.storagesize1html.html.xlf
storagesize[6,9]xml.xml.xlf
These each have
its:storageLineBreak
, which should beits:lineBreakType
.terminology1xml.xml.xlf
terminology2html.html.xlf
These each have
its:termInfo
, which doesn't exist in ITS. There areits:termInfoRef
andits:termInfoPointer
. This will require more than just changing the attribute however, because the file needs a separate node to hold the term information, and in the present .xlf file the attribute itself is holding the value.I would send a pull request, but I think these files are generated (not sure by what).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: