[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Comments - B.1.3.7 subtype processing requirements
I tend to agree. From: Ryan King [mailto:ryanki@microsoft.com] All of the sub properties already have the a similar PR to the following: · If the attribute subtype is used, the attribute type must be specified as well. So if your statement “I think this PR comes from the constraint that you should not have a subtype without a type, therefore the subtype is linked to the type (it complements it).” applies to subType in <mtc:matches> shouldn’t it also apply to all sub attributes: 2.3.1.34 subType, 2.3.1.35 subState, D.1.2.2 subFs? I think it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion, or maybe just the PR noted above is enough to show the relationship? Ryan From: Yves Savourel [mailto:yves@opentag.com] I think this PR comes from the constraint that you should not have a subtype without a type, therefore the subtype is linked to the type (it complements it). In your example, if a type can have the same subtype value you can have an “invisible” update: the updated subtype value simply happens to have the same value as before. -ys From: Ryan King [mailto:ryanki@microsoft.com] B.1.3.7 subtype processing requirements state: If the attribute type is modified, the attribute subtype must be updated or deleted. Is this always the case? What if I have a two types, e.g. “tm” and “mt”, that have the same subType? If my type changes from “tm” to “mt” there may be no reason for me to update or delete the subState. Was there a particular reason for this processing requirement? Similar sub attributes… 2.3.1.34 subType 2.3.1.35 subState D.1.2.2 subFs …do not have this requirement. Thanks, Ryan |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]