OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Comments - PR for PI

I agree that the fact that we lack PR for PI, but have them for XML Comments and CDATA sections is unbalanced.

But I wonder if the better thing to do would be to remove the PR we have for comments and CDATA?

It occurs to me that since we say XLIFF is an XML vocabulary, we are bound by the PR prescribed by the XML spec WRT XML processing.

If we do have additional PR for PI, I think we are not at liberty to contradict the XML spec.

On PI, the XML spec says (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-pi):

"PIs are not part of the document's character data, but must be passed through to the application."

I'm not 100% clear on what *passing through to the application* means.

Does this mean we'd be obligated to say "Writers MUST preserve XML processing instructions on output."?

Subject: XLIFF 2.0 Comments - PR for PI

  *   From: "Yves Savourel" <yves@opentag.com>
  *   To: <xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
  *   Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 11:25:09 -0600


Comments on XLIFF Version 2.0 Committee Specification Draft 01

PR for PI

There is a section about comments and one about CDATA sections. But there is nothing about how to deal with Processing Instructions in an XLIFF document.

My personal view would be a Processing Requirement that states "Writers MAY preserve XML processing instructions on output."


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]