I think there is value in keeping the FS module attached to the <notes> element (I think I sent an example in an earlier mail). But I agree that it should be removed from the <originalData> element.
Yves, could you please provide criteria for when it is too complicated or expensive to preserve FS attributes on <data>?
Thanks,
Bryan
Format Style attributes again
Hi all,
It seems to me that the widespread presence of the fs:fs and fs:subFs attributes is causing a lot more headache than they are worth
for the tools not implementing that module.
I've already mentioned that those attributes cannot be preserved in <cp>.
I would now add that they are causing issues in <originalData>. That element serves only the purpose of grouping <data> in the XLIFF
document and there is no reason to preserve it when a tool reads the <data> elements into its own data model.
I would suggest that fs:fs and fs:subFs be removed from elements where they are the lone attributes: notes and originalData.
I would also suggest to remove them from <data> where preserving them is complicated and expensive, and their usage likely limited.
XLIFF is an exchange format and should be easy to map to third party tool's data model.
Regards,
-yves