Uploaded image for project: 'OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC'
  1. OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC
  2. XLIFF-28

Comments in the draft

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Proposal:
      Hide

      Deem the comments and their removal editorial in nature, sometimes adding informative content such as clarifications or shifting emphasis.
      [Most of these comments are already addressed in the specification prose and are kept just as flags to get rid off by cs01, so hopefully none of them should necessitate csprd03]

      Show
      Deem the comments and their removal editorial in nature, sometimes adding informative content such as clarifications or shifting emphasis. [Most of these comments are already addressed in the specification prose and are kept just as flags to get rid off by cs01, so hopefully none of them should necessitate csprd03]
    • Resolution:
      Hide

      According to ballot result the XLIFF 2.1 own definition will be removed. Readers will have to gather the information on the attribute from the ITS 2.0 spec.
      --------
      This was the last point of contention on this issue. I will mark this as applied as soon as the annotatorsRef definition removed.

      Show
      According to ballot result the XLIFF 2.1 own definition will be removed. Readers will have to gather the information on the attribute from the ITS 2.0 spec. -------- This was the last point of contention on this issue. I will mark this as applied as soon as the annotatorsRef definition removed.

      Description

      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?

        Attachments

          Activity

            People

            • Assignee:
              DavidFilip David Filip [X] (Inactive)
              Reporter:
              ysavourel Yves Savourel [X] (Inactive)
            • Watchers:
              3 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Due:
                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: