19 Dec 2002: the proposal is to add these attributes to group for the express purpose of setting defaults for all child <trans-unit>s: charclass, maxbytes, maxheight, maxwidth, minbytes, minheight, minwidth, size-unit, translate, reformat The attributes of the <trans-unit> that have not been considered for the <group> element are listed below: approved, phase-name, tu-state (proposed)
17
Dec 2002: John Reid to draft proposal for extending <group> for
storing default attributes.
10
Dec 2002 : Mark raised John Reid's suggestion of using <group> to
store defaulted values and adding the defaultable attributes to the group
element. Tony suggested closing out on the original proposal and not using
XPath by replacing the default strategy with <group>. John Reid
volunteered to redefine the proposal around new attributes of <group>
for the next meeting.
Original:
Amended
Requirements:
R.1 a mechanism to allow defaulting for XLIFF data categories
R.2 formal representation of data category is secondary (i.e. the mechanism should be applicable to attributes and elements)
R.3 mechanism should work for all XLIFF data categories
R.4 location for defaulting information is secondary (i.e. default in central location, default at specific attributes or elements, and default at all attributes and elements is acceptable)
R.5 XPath should not be used to relate default settings to the elements or attributes to which they pertain (let's call this 'target')These requirements boil down to 3 questions:
Q.1 What is defaulted?
Q.2 How is it defaulted?
Q.3 Where is it defaulted? Originally submitted proposal (which did not meet R.5), answered the questions as follows:
P1.A1 allow defaulting for any XLIFF data category
P1.A2 use XPath to designate the targets for default settings
P1.A3 use a new central element 'defaults'
Amended proposals which take into account R.5 :
P1': like P1 but without XPath
The idea here is that each target explicitly names the defaults which should be used for it. From my understanding, this is not really kosher, since for example the way to identify relationships (or 'targets')is a proprietary and not very efficient one. XPath is the standard for this. Accordingly, I would ask the TC members to reconsider my original proposal. P2: defaults are encoded at the level of the 'group' element (John's proposal) P3: defaults are encoded 'in the vicinity'of the XLIFF element to which they pertain (Mark's proposal)
todo: a)define defaultable data categories Q.1
b)design a representation for default settings (Q.2); this has include a way to identify to which XLIFF data category a setting pertains 7 Jan 20003 – Members of the TC have been asked express opinions on this before next week when there will be a vote. |