One more Con:
7. May not be suitable for resegmenting across inline tags.
Tony Jewtushenko wrote:
Summary:
In a nutshell, the concept behind this scenario is that segments can
be defined by the hard structure of trans-units, or optionally within
groups. All segmentation functionality is offloaded to the tools that
generate or process the XLIFF content, including resegmentation.
Original Discussions:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-seg/200404/msg00024.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-seg/200404/msg00012.html
Original XLIFF file:
<trans-unit id="1">
<source xml:lang="en-US">Long
sentence. Short sentence.</source>
<target xml:lang="sv-SE"
state="final">Lång mening. Mer mening. Kort
mening.</target>
</trans-unit>
Which can be segmented using a tool into the following "hard" segments:
<trans-unit id="1.1">
<source xml:lang="en-US">Long
sentence.</source>
<target xml:lang="sv-SE"
state="translated">Lång mening. </target>
</trans-unit>
<trans-unit id="1.2">
<source xml:lang="en-US">Short
sentence.</source>
<target xml:lang="sv-SE"
state="translated">Kort mening.</target>
</trans-unit>
Or, we can create segmentation groups that contain the individual
segments, and tag them with additional metadata that identifies them
as segment-groups/segments:
<group extype="segment-group" id="1">
<<trans-unit extype="segment" id="1">
<source xml:lang="en-US">Long
sentence.</source>
<target xml:lang="sv-SE"
state="translated">Lång mening.</target>
</trans-unit>
<trans-unit extype="segment-group" id="2">
<source xml:lang="en-US">Short
sentence.</source>
<target xml:lang="sv-SE"
state="translated">Kort mening.</target>
</trans-unit>
</group>
When reconciling with the skeleton file, presumably when building out
the translated file, a tool would need to match up the segment-group
with the original segment it replaces. Similar reconciliation would be
required if updating the TM.
PRO's:
- Uses existing XLIFF structures: no additional changes to XLIFF
specification is required.
- For most use cases, very simple to implement.
CON's:
- Matching up resegmented data becomes tool dependent, and may
be
handled differently by individual tool providers.
- May not be suitable or very complicated for moving segments
across groups (ie, resegmenting the segment-groups).
- May not be suitable for processing target only changes returned
by vendor.
- <>Implementation is non-normative, and would require
adherence
to profile rather than XSD validation.
- Complicate process of building out translated content using
skeleton files.
- Multiple iterations of resegmentation may create tangle of
groups.
--
Tony Jewtushenko
Principal Product Manager - Oracle Application Development Tools
Oracle Corporation, Ireland
mailto:tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com
Direct tel: +353.1.8039080
--
Tony Jewtushenko
Principal Product Manager - Oracle Application Development Tools
Oracle Corporation, Ireland
mailto:tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com
Direct tel: +353.1.8039080
|