Re: [ACTION-160] (related to [ACTION-135] too) Summarize specialRequirements

Hi Yves,

2012/7/9 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>

> Hi Felix, all,
>
> > So I think - if I understand you correctly - what
> > you want to achieve is that tools that make use
> > of metadata that is coming from various sources
> > (XLIFF, ITS, PO, ..). Currently that metadata is
> > not coming at all, or only in priority ways. The
> > aim now is to have one agreed metadata definition
> > for max-size, right?
> > ...
> > ...
> > What worries me then is that we aim to create a
> > single piece of metadata, which is not part of the
> > big picture. That raises several questions / requirements:
>
> Maybe it'll help to go back at the root of this requirement (as far as I
> understand it):
>
> Sometimes a string to be translated has a limitation on how long it can
> be. The limitation can be in the storage (fixed length DB field in a CMS
> for example), or in the display: We are talking about the storage here.
>
> What I think ITS needs to provide is the way to pass that information down
> the consumer tools so the limitation can be verified at some stage (for
> example: during the translation, or/and at a QA step after).
>
> That's the "big picture" for me. I'm not sure what you mean by "special
> purpose length solution". To me the proposal Giuseppe has for maxStorgeSize
> is rather general.
>
> But maybe I'm missing your point.
>


Sorry, I meant the big picture of other requirements related to constraint
checking - given how we started with specialRequirements, I assume that
max-size is just one piece of this. But no need to discuss this further, I
share your view.

The only thing which is left then is coordination with a - to be developed?
- XLIFF solution. Can somebody help to assure compatibility in this area?

Best,

Felix





> -yves
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow