Re: [xliff-comment] csprd01-17: Structure and Structural Elements: <sm> <em> justification

[Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de>]

Hi Yves,

Although we have these MUST statements in the specification, they should 
be more prominently presented, for example, as you suggested, at the top 
of the specification, and possibly supported with an additional 
statement on interoperability between tools and user agents.

This then will make it totally clear that a MUST is a MUST for an 
efficient and effective deployment of XLIFF in the supply chain 
independent of the actually employed tool(s).

Thanks and cheers -- Jörg

On June 18, 2013 at 11:12 (CEST), Yves Savourel wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions Jörg. I'll work on integrating them into the existing text (for example there is a full section on splitting annotation we can refer to).
>
> > It is strongly recommended to use this mechanism instead
> > of introducing custom attributes to accomplish a similar
> > behavior with a series of <mrk> elements.
>
> I don't think we shoukd add the text above though. It is not just strongly recommend to not use custom mechanism: it is strictly forbidden.
> See
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.0/csprd01/xliff-core-v2.0-csprd01.html#d0e7685
>
> We can't keep saying for every single feature of the spec: "use this mechanism not a custom one". If it is not clear in the current document then it should be put in red capital letter at the top of the specification. It's valid for all XLIFF 2.0 constructs.
> Maybe in the http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.0/csprd01/xliff-core-v2.0-csprd01.html#d0e497 section.
>
> But at the same time I'm not sure why this requirement should be stronger than another: a MUST is a MUST.
>
> Cheers,
> -ys