[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: Proposed solution for csprd02 (RE: csprd02 comment - xml:lang and xml:space)
David, I have no objection to your proposal. But I don’t understand the advantage of explicitly including the XML namespace attributes as core vs. adding them via
extensibility. I will hold off from sending my CFD for 127 and 150 in favor of addressing them at the TC meeting tomorrow. Hopefully we will be able to put these, along with
Fragment Identification, to a roll call ballot solution. Thanks, Bryan From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of David Filip Yves, Bryan, I agree that the default for xml:space is the value inherited from the parent. This is how the behavior is defined in the xml spec. Now, I believe that we should explicitly include the xml namespace attributes as core at all elements that are extensible by other namespaces to avoid the mixed core/extension behavior of the attributes. The other way out would be to have xlf:space and xlf:lang and these would be automatically disallowed at the extension points by virtue of the ‘other‘ wildcard. Nevertheless, I believe that the former is cleaner and the right thing to do Cheers dF is AFK, so that this had to be typed on his tough phone.. On Jan 6, 2014 6:34 PM, "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote: Hi Bryan, |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]