RE: [xliff-inline] 1.3. Must be able to represent paired codes thathave been separated

["Schnabel, Bryan S" <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com>]

Hi Yves,

I have no rationale to prefer one over the other to be named idref. It was an oversight - my fault for not taking the larger set of issues into account. 

I see "nid" referred to in 1.12.3.1. Is there something to do with the "n" in "nid" that makes it intuitive for its use? If not I would prefer it to be an idref as well.

- Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 6:26 AM
To: xliff-inline@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff-inline] 1.3. Must be able to represent paired codes that have been separated

Hi Bryan,

> I would strongly advocate for idref over (second/paired)
> id, rid, or idr. As a long time XML hacker, I think idref 
> has a rich and understood tradition of being paired with 
> id. And frankly, the brevity of the other choices (by a
> character or two) does not seem very compelling to me
> (my bias: clarity trumps brevity).

I have no problem with idref.

But there are currently two attributes in the code elements that hold reference to another id.
The other is "nid", which points to an element in the outside structure that stores the original data. Technically it is also an "idref", no?

What would be the rational to prefer one over the other to be named idref?

-ys


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php