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] csprd01-17: Structure and Structural Elements: <sm> <em> justification

Hi Jörg,

> It would be great if you could share with me some of the pros 
> and cons that triggered the decision. This might also find its 
> way to the specification so that adopters and implementers 
> have a convincing rationale and appropriate use case(s) for 
> employing XLIFF 2.

As I mentioned before, one example is that having distinct elements for the two models allow to have different sets of attributes and therefore easier validation.

Another reason is the confusion that would brink using <mrk> sometimes empty and linked to another <mrk>, or sometime not empty and linked to no other <mrk>.
Using three elements allows to have well-define content model and no risk of confusion or error.

Another is that one would need to add create a new ID value for the closing <mrk/> so the opening one could refer to it. With <sm>/<em> a single ID value is enough.

Using <sm>/<em>: <sm id='m1'/>...<em startRef='m1'/>
Reusing <mrk>: <mrk id='m1' endRef='m1end'>...<mrk id='m1end' startRef='m1'/>

Overall, we didn't see any true major advantages to re-use <mrk>.
But we may have miss something: do you see a major advantage in using only <mrk>?


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