[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-inline] Personal Action Item to Review the existing Requirements
Hi Christian, >> 5. Unfortunately, I am not clear about >> ...#1.9... > > Could you elaborate? CL> No :-) I simply don't understand what's meant by "Must be able to associate the same codes between the source and the target segments". CL> Is it CL> a. have identifiers for the generic inline markup (so that you can see that it represents the "italics" in the original) CL> b. have a mechanism to enforce that the same markup is present in different versions of content (e.g. the source language and the target language) CL> c. ... On a second read, I think you are right: that entry could be phrased better. It's not a), and not quite b) either. Maybe something like: "Must be able to associate each code of the source with its corresponding code in the target" be better? >> 6. I am tempted to suggest an additional "Guiding Principle" >>... CL> I wonder if something like CL> For the implemementation of any requirement, a conformance clause should CL> be considered. CL> would also be a possible additional "Guiding Principle". I guess the group will decide. Any comment anyone? Cheers, -yves
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]