[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Simplified XLIFF element tree
Hi everyone, > For systems that have chosen to pre-segment, > there should not be any compulsion to do > otherwise. I completely agree. And I didn't see any of the proposals so far trying to preventing a tool to pre-segment. > I always viewed the the original <seg-source> > proposal with a great deal of regret. > In my mind it was a very bad choice in XLIFF 1.2. > and has proven to be so. Several tools work perfectly well with the current 1.2 segmentation. They also inter-operate well. Which is more than we can say about the non-1.2-standard way of using trans-unit as segments holder. The example I ran into last week is only one among the several distressful cases were we could simply not use the XLIFF files generated with such pre-segmented content. The two main issues with <seg-source> are: a) it does not allow to set 1.2 flags like state and others at the segment level; and b) it duplicates the content. So the 1.2 segmentation representation certainly needs a make-over, but as far as my experience it has been proven to work fine for tools that implement it. What has been proven a dangerous adventure is choosing to use proprietary ways of representing segmentation that cause a lack of interoperability with other tools. Cheers, -yves
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]