xliff-inline — archive
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]
[xliff-inline] Teleconference - Nov-9-2010 ACTION ITEM "Iinitialdefinition for "what we code in the XLIFF content"
Hi Yves/all,
I got the action item
ACTION ITEM: Christian to try to get an initial definition for "what we code in the XLIFF content".
My current thinking is that what we are trying to do is the following:
1. Create a conceptual model that represents concepts/entities along with their features/properties and relationships
2. Create a representation for the conceptual model
As of now, from my understanding the following classes of concepts/entities have been mentioned with respect to "generic inline markup":
a. entities which belong to the original (e.g. inline markup like "em") - we could call them "genuine" inline entities
b. entities which supplement/augment the original;annotations that are not available in the original - we could call them "supplementary" entities
In addition to the aforementioned classes, the following types of concepts/entities have been mentioned so far:
a. "illegal/non-XML" characters
b. "special" characters (e.g. & or [] for hotkeys/ accelerator keys)
Upon second thought, I am not sure that we will be able to come up with a good, universal definition of "special" characters. I am under the impression that each usage scenario may have its own definition of what is special. Thus, I suggest that we do not talk about "special" characters.
If we want to represent any of this, we need a "carrier" (e.g. something that represents the "em" we had in the original). This "carrier" could come in two flavours:
1. attached to the material to which it pertains
Example: In
You need a new
the information that "motherboard" is a term is attached to "motherboard".
2. detached from the material to which it pertains
Example: In
The information that "discoursal point of view" is a term is detached from it (namely contained in "its:termRule).
Putting this all together, I think that we are trying to do the following when we discuss the implementation of generic inline markup:
Suggest a representation for
- genuine inline entities
- supplementary entities related to inline entities
- surrogate entities to represent "illegal/non-XML" characters
The representation may be attached or detached from the material to which it pertains.
Cheers,
Christian
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]