Robert, Chase,
I think that we discussed that the context shouldn't be embedded in JLIFF instances. Just referenced?
Cheers dF
On Dec 7, 2017 18:28, "Robert van Engelen" <> wrote:
Chase,
IMO this looks good.
I’ll work on the schema to incorporate contexts, such that the placement of the context in a JLIFF document is near the root. I think it actually should be part of the root like so:
{
"jliff": "2.1",
"srcLang": "en",
"trgLang": "fr”,
“@context”: {
"xliff": "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:2.0”,
"gls": "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0”,
…etc etc...
},
"files": [
Which should make the context visible to all modules/extensions defined as ‘metadata’ in JLIFF.
- Robert
Dr. Robert van Engelen, CEO/CTO Genivia Inc.
voice: (850) 270 6179 ext 104
fax: (850) 270 6179
mobile: (850) 264 2676
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/robertvanengelen/
On Dec 2, 2017, at 6:15 PM, Chase Tingley <> wrote:
Hi all,
I've pushed a working draft of a JSON-LD context file to github.
Currently, this just defines all of the namespaces/prefixes from the XLIFF spec. A few notes about issues we should work through:
I've included the 'xliff' prefix. In practice, we've been assuming that this namespace is implicit for the elements in JLIFF. Is there a reason to define it? I'm not sure.
I worked from the XLIFF 2.1 document, but I also included the CTR namespace from 2.0. We haven't discussed whether we should support the 2.0 CTR (or even, more generally, whether JLIFF support starts explicitly at XLIFF 2.0 or 2.1.)
