This note provides informative best practice for XLIFF 2 Specifications:
XLIFF Version 2.1 [[XLIFF-2.1]]
XLIFF Version 2.0 [[XLIFF-2.0]]
ISO 21720:2017 [[ISO XLIFF]]
Status
This Informational Best Practice was last revised by TAPICC T1/WG3 or the TAPICC Steering
Committee on the above date. The level of approval is also listed above. Check the “Latest
version” location noted above for possible later revisions of this document.
When referencing this specification the following citation format should be used:
[XLIFF-EM-BP]
XLIFF 2 Extraction and Merging Best Practice, Version 1.0
+ Agreement.
Citation format
When referencing this specification the following citation format should be used:
[XLIFF-EM-BP]
XLIFF 2 Extraction and Merging Best Practice, Version 1.0
Edited by David Filip and Ján Husarčík. 24 January 2018. Working Draft 01. https://galaglobal.github.io/TAPICC/T1/WG3/wd01/XLIFF-EM-BP-V1.0-wd01.html.
- Latest version: N/A.html.
The Translation API Class and Cases (TAPICC) initiative is a collaborative,
community-driven, open-source project to advance API standards in the localization industry.
The overall purpose of this project is to provide a metadata and API framework on which
users can base their integration, automation and interoperability efforts.
The usage of all deliverables of this initiative - including this specification - is
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
specification shows why some Extraction approaches will cause issues
during an XLIFF Roundtrip. This best practice guidance provides
better thought through alternatives and shows how to use many of advanced XLIFF features for
- lossless Localization roundtrip of HTML and XML based content.
XLIFF attributes on structural or inline elements providing additional contexts, such
as disp or equiv.
Inline codes
marker
Introduction
This specification targets designers of XLIFF Extracting and Merging Tools for content
owners. XLIFF Roundtrip designers of all kinds will benefit, no matter if they design their
XLIFF Extractor/Merger for corporate or blog use.
Extraction and merging behavior is out of the normative scope of OASIS XLIFF
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
best practice guidance provides better thought through alternatives and shows how to use many
of advanced XLIFF features for lossless Localization roundtrip of HTML and XML based content.
Most of the times there are no ultimate prescribed solutions, rather possible design goals are
- described and best methods how to achieve them proposed.
Specification
Inline Codes
Representing Spanning Codes
Spanning codes in the original format are created by opening code, content and closing
+ described and best methods how to achieve them proposed.
Specification
Inline Codes
Representing Spanning Codes
Spanning codes in the original format are created by opening code, content and closing
code. In HTML that can be <bold>text</bold>, in RTF \b text
\b0.
In XLIFF2 such code can be represented using <sc />/<ec /> pair universally,
or by <pc></pc> in case of
@@ -61,33 +61,33 @@
for elements which are declared EMPTY.“ (https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-starttags),
e.g. even <span> without content would use <span></span> as compared to <br
/>. •https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-14
- http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/xliff-core-v2.1.html#ph
•[outermost_inline_excluded]
https://github.com/GALAglobal/TAPICC/tree/master/extraction_examples/outermost_inline_excluded
•Both functional and formatting inline codes provide additional context for translator and
could be linguistically significant. •If they are important enough to be in native format,
- they should be present in extracted content.
Incomplete Extraction of Inline Codes
•[CDATA] https://github.com/GALAglobal/TAPICC/tree/master/extraction_examples/cdata
+ they should be present in extracted content.
Incomplete Extraction of Inline Codes
•[CDATA] https://github.com/GALAglobal/TAPICC/tree/master/extraction_examples/cdata
•[inline_codes_plain_text]
https://github.com/GALAglobal/TAPICC/tree/master/extraction_examples/inline_codes_plain_text
•http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/xliff-core-v2.1.html#d0e8112
•https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-i18n-bp/#AuthCDATA •Not using native XLIFF representation
- leaves inline codes unprotected and increases risk of roundtrip corrupting them.
Representing Multiple Subsequent Codes
•[multiple_codes_represented_as_single]
+ leaves inline codes unprotected and increases risk of roundtrip corrupting them.
Representing Multiple Subsequent Codes
•[multiple_codes_represented_as_single]
https://github.com/GALAglobal/TAPICC/tree/master/extraction_examples/multiple_codes_represented_as_single
•Grouping several independent inline codes into single representation could prove
challenging with negative impact on •Translation quality •Fluency •Functionality
•Automated actions •Validation •Some codes needs to be removed, copied, added or
reordered. •If any of the above actions is to be prevented, it can be controlled using
- editing hints with finer granularity.
[ISO XLIFF]
Edited by Tom Comerford, David Filip, Rodolfo M. Raya, and Yves
Savourel: ISO 21720:2017 - XLIFF (XML Localisation interchange file
format)November 2017https://www.iso.org/standard/71490.html
-
Non-Normative References
[] Error: no bibliography entry: d5e260 found in http://cdn.docbook.org/release/xsl/bibliography/bibliography.xml
\ No newline at end of file
+
Non-Normative References
[] Error: no bibliography entry: d5e263 found in http://cdn.docbook.org/release/xsl/bibliography/bibliography.xml