[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] placeholder id should not be required
I don't recall a discussion around making the id of inline codes optional, although it seems like a very reasonable request. I do remember a discussion around removing the <x/>, <bx/>, and <ex/> tags since <ph/>, <bpt/>, and <ept/>, respectively, can replace those. However, the reverse is not true (<x/> cannot replace all uses of <ph>). For that reason, it is preferrable to use <ph/> over <x/>. As an explanation: The <ph> tag and <x/> tags mark unpaired codes. The <ph> tag can have as content the marked up code while the <x/> actually replaces the code. For example, the following 'foo' formatted text contains a bookmark code preceding the word 'bookmark'. This text contains a %%bm;1%%bookmark. If <x/> is used, the <x/> replaces the bookmark code, '%%bm;1%%', which would be stored in a skeleton file. The resultant xliff would be as follows. <source>This text contains a <x id="1" ctype="bookmark" clone="no"/>bookmark.</source> If <ph> is used, the <ph> marks up the bookmark code, which would remain as content of the <ph> tag. The resultant xliff would be as follows. <source>This text contains a <ph id="1" ctype="bookmark" clone="no"/>%%bm;1%%</ph>bookmark.</source> cheers, john
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC