RE: [xliff] Assume elements without IDs cannot have FragIDs

Thanks David. In retrospect, I wish we’d made IDs required on <segment>. Not a huge deal.

From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 11:04 AM
To: Schnabel, Bryan S
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff] Assume elements without IDs cannot have FragIDs

Bryan, this is a correct assumption

Although we don't say so, it follows from the spec

We can add a note or warning at a later stage if we feel so because it changes nothing

there was discussion about this, I wanted modules to have fragids even w/o ids but we agreed that it would require a wildcard mechanism and discarded the idea all together.

Who wants fragids must use/add ids. BTW, this is also why we made group ids required..

Dr. David Filip

=======================

LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS

University of Limerick, Ireland

telephone: +353-6120-2781

cellphone: +353-86-0222-158

facsimile: +353-6120-2734

http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452

mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Schnabel, Bryan S <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com> wrote:

Looking at “3 Fragment Identification” I do not see an explicit statement that “elements without IDs cannot have FragIDs.”

For example the segment below has no ID:

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<source>source</source>

<target>target</target>

</segment>

</unit>

</file>

</xliff>

We imply this in 3.1 Selectors for Core Elements

“No prefix indicates an id for a <segment> or an <ignorable> or an inline element in the <source> element and the value of that id is unique within the enclosing <unit> element (with the exception of the matching inline elements in the <target>).”

No action requested. I think the spec is fine for now. I just wanted to see if my assumption is true.

xliff message