Re: [xliff] The <tool> element

[John Reid <JREID@novell.com>]

Hi Yves,

My responses are below. I apologize for not responding sooner, this sat
in my draft folder until Yves sent out Draft 2 of the 1.1 spec.

<ys>
John proposed the following attributes:
- id
- name
- version
- company
Some of those names are used by other element for slight different
purposes
(version of xliff, id of inline codes, etc.) If we use 'name' for tool,
why
do we have 'phase-name' in <phase> (or 'company-name') and why we have
different kinds of 'type'?
Or should we go with 'tool-id', 'tool-name', 'tool-company', etc.?
</ys>
<jr>'tool-id', 'tool-name', 'tool-version', and 'tool-company' as the
attribute names.</jr>

<ys>
What do we do with the current 'tool' attribute?
- deprecate it?
- make it the reference to to <tool> element?
- leave it as it?
</ys>
<jr>Deprecate the tool attribute.</jr>

<ys>
- Do we want to allow an extension point for attribute in <tool>?
(I'm guessing yes)
- Do we want to allow an extension point for element in <tool>?
(I'm guessing yes)
</ys>
<jr>Allow extension points for attributes and elements within the tool
element.</jr>

<ys>
- Should we add a new attribute in the element that refere to <tool> or
use
the current 'tool' attribute? If we add one: is 'tool-id' the name to
use?
(then why the other references are using 'phase-name' not 'phase-id'?
</ys>
<jr>Use 'tool-id' as the reference to tool. This should be okay since
we have handled the naming "guidelines" issue. </jr>

cheers,
john