RE: [xliff-inline] Proposed requirement for inline SC: XML well-formed-ness as a design goal for XLIFF 2.0 inline markup

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>]

Hi Bryan,

> I'm sending this to the list because I'm not sure if you 
> want us to add proposals directly to the wiki, or 
> introduce them to this list. If your preference is for 
> the former, I'll gladly go to the wiki. If it is for 
> the latter, here are my thoughts:
> Specifically, it's my old (probably tedious) argument that 
> while there are real world cases where our old <bpt>, <ept> 
> markup are required, our spec should specify that when 
> possible, the best practice is to use something along the 
> lines of our preferred <g> and <x>...

Yes, please feel free to add the item to the requirement list. Since we have not gone through yet, I don't see any problem adding to it.
Please, add it to the wiki, in the same form as the others. Feel free to put a link to the thread of discussion for reference as well.


> Oh, and I'd really love it if we could discourage escaping 
> XML code (like: <seg> xxxxx<in_start id="i_01" >&lt;i&gt;</in_start>xxxxxx.</seg>
> <seg>xxxxxx<in_end id="i_01" >&lt;/i&gt;</in_end>xxxxxx.</seg>

Add it to the list as well. But frankly I don't know how we could represent '<' in XML content as anything but some kind of escaped sequence.


> By the way, if you want me to attend a given SC meeting for 
> discussion on this topic, please let me know ahead of time. 
> My general goal will be to attend as many SC meeting as I 
> can, but it means cancelling my early morning sunrise plans 
> with my group.

Will do. It's nice of you to consider making XLIFF the priority on those days. We should try to work through email as needed too.

Cheers,
-ys