[ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-67?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
David Filip updated XLIFF-67:
-----------------------------
Labels: CFD editorial (was: editorial request_tc_discussion work_required)
> LQI comment vs Localization Note
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: XLIFF-67
> URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-67
> Project: OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: other
> Affects Versions: 2.1_csprd04
> Environment: http://markmail.org/thread/37xmhk3zbon3i7w3
> Reporter: Yves Savourel
> Assignee: David Filip
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: CFD, editorial
> Fix For: 2.1_cs01
>
>
> In "5.9.6.4 Localization Quality Issue" there is a note saying:
> "If human reviewers or other QA agents (Enriching Agents from the XLIFF
> specification point of view), need to insert general
> comments pertaining to whole structural elements such as paragraphs, sections,
> or files rather than to specific inline portions of
> source or target content, the Localization Note data category is more suitable."
> I'm not sure this is wise. I would expect a QA agent to use the LQI data
> category, not the Localization Note data category.
> Maybe we should say nothing instead of hinting at other ways to do thing?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)
