Re: [xliff] A tricky problem for handling in XLIFF

["John Reid" <JREID@novell.com>]

Hi Mat,

 

How do you intend to implement your option 1 in XLIFF 1.0? After all, 1.0 does not allow for extension. How could you in XLIFF 1.1 since neither <source> nor <target> can contain any but the XLIFF inline elements?

 

It is facile to handle the 0 and singular situations and that handling will work for all languages. It is the plural that adds the complexity.

My suggestion would be option 2, create a separate <trans-unit> for each source option. Place the default, "otherwise", option in the <target> and use the <alt-trans> in the plural option to hold the nondefault options. You can try using either xsl or ovpxml, since it seems to duplicate xsl, or some other variant to label choices within the <alt-trans>.  Of course, to extend XLIFF you need to use 1.1. My biggest concern about this approach is wrapping XLIFF elements within xsl since I haven't played around with it to see how it could work.

 

Of course, one would need to control the handling of this XLIFF throughout the processing because there is nothing in the standard that allows for multiple valid targets in the <alt-trans>. When this was brought up before I thought we might want to allow the <alt-trans> to contain valid targets which could work since the <target> is an optional element.

Cheers,

john