RE: [xliff-inline] Personal Action Item to Review the existing Requirements

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>]

Hi Christian,

>> 5. Unfortunately, I am not clear about
>> ...#1.9...
>
> Could you elaborate?
CL> No :-) I simply don't understand what's meant by "Must be able to associate the same codes between the source and the target segments".
CL> Is it
CL>   a. have identifiers for the generic inline markup (so that you can see that it represents the "italics" in the original)
CL>   b. have a mechanism to enforce that the same markup is present in different versions of content (e.g. the source language and the target language)
CL>   c. ...

On a second read, I think you are right: that entry could be phrased better.
It's not a), and not quite b) either.

Maybe something like: "Must be able to associate each code of the source with its corresponding code in the target" be better?



>> 6. I am tempted to suggest an additional "Guiding Principle"
>>...
CL> I wonder if something like
CL>	For the implemementation of any requirement, a conformance clause should 
CL> be considered.
CL> would also be a possible additional "Guiding Principle".

I guess the group will decide.
Any comment anyone?


Cheers,
-yves