Details

    • Resolution:
      Hide

      This has been closed without resolution since the module was dropped from XLIFF 2.1

      Show
      This has been closed without resolution since the module was dropped from XLIFF 2.1

      Description

      I'm combining several comments into a single message. The first one is a
      general concern, and the subsequent ones are specific examples (which may
      also illustrate that concern, in their own ways).

      1. General concern about complexity

      I am concerned that this module is suffering from feature creep, and that
      it will hinder the effective implementation of the module. The module is
      now attempting to solve several separate problems at once:

      • Tracking changes to note content
      • Tracking changes to attribute values on arbitrary (I think?) elements
      • Tracking changes to content at the source, target, segment, or
        unit-level

      The overloading that makes this possible makes the schema difficult to
      understand and, I fear, unlikely to be supported fully. As the content
      tracking is a substantially different model, it could even be argued that
      it should be split off to a separate module.

      2. Incorrect example in section 5.6.8

      The first two <ctr:revisions> elements in the example in 5.6.8 have
      appliesTo values of "source" and "target" respectively.

      By my reading of section 5.6.6.3, this means that these revisions should
      use <contentItem> to track the full source and target contents:

      If and only if the REQUIRED appliesTo attribute value is source or target,
      the <revisions> element MUST have exactly one <contentItem> grandchild
      element.

      In the example, these revisions use <item> for the source and target
      content, which looks incorrect.

      3. Questions regarding element hierarchy within <revision>

      In describing the contents of <revisions> in 5.6.6.3, it says:

      In section 5.6.6.8, it is noted that:

      Based on these two sections, I infer that it is not possible to have a
      <item> in the same <revision> as any of unitItem/segmentItem/contentItem:

      • If revisions/@appliesTo="unit", then the <revision> must contain
        <unitItem>; <item> is not allowed to track changes on <unit>, so it can't
        be used
      • If revisions/@appliesTo="segment", then the <revision> must contain
        <segmentItem>; <item> is not allowed to track changes on <source> or
        <target>, so it can't be used
      • If revisions/@appliesTo="source" or "target", then the <revision> must
        contain <contentItem>; <item> is not allowed to track changes on <source>
        or <target>, so it can't be used

      So it seems like there is no case in which <item> can be present within the
      same <revision> as one of these specialized units.

      However, the element diagram in section 5.6.6.1, it appears that this is
      allowed:

      +---<revision>
      <http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd02/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd02.html#revision>
      +

      +---<xlf:originaldata>
      <http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd02/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd02.html#originaldata>
      ?

      +---<ctr:item>
      <http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd02/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd02.html#item>
      *

      +---Exactly one of <contentItem>
      <http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd02/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd02.html#contentItem>
      OR <segmentItem>
      <http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd02/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd02.html#segmentItem>
      OR <unitItem>
      <http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd02/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd02.html#unitItem>)

      In what circumstance would this be possible? And if it is not
      possible, should the diagram be changed?

      4. Use of <xlf:originaldata> in revisions

      It is currently legal to include <xlf:originaldata> inside a
      <revision> element even if the revision only contains <item> data.
      This is (I think) nonsensical.

      Wouldn't <xlf:originaldata> only be useful if one of <contentItem>,
      <segmentItem>, or <unitItem> were present?

      *5. Use of "property" attribute element in <contentItem>, <unitItem>,
      or <segmentItem>*

      In all these elements, "property" is required but has only one
      possible value. This appears like it's being done either for symmetry
      with <item> or for some sort of future-proofing, but I question
      whether it is useful.

        Attachments

          Activity

            People

            • Assignee:
              DavidFilip David Filip
              Reporter:
              ctingley Chase Tingley [X] (Inactive)
            • Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Due:
                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: