[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-inline] XLIFF Inline Markup Subcommittee Teleconference - Dec-13-2011 - Summary
Agreed. Using <pc> where you should use the more semantically sensible <sc>/<ec> is ugly. And the point of my ever-so-long-winded rant is that I see <sc>/<ec> equally ugly for 90% of the cases. -----Original Message----- From: xliff-inline@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff-inline@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:32 PM To: Schnabel, Bryan S; xliff-inline@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff-inline] XLIFF Inline Markup Subcommittee Teleconference - Dec-13-2011 - Summary Hi Bryan, > By using the id/idref pair you know > that any <pc> with an id is essentially <sc>. > And any <pc> with and idref is essentially <ec>. I see. The thing I would not like at all with such solution is that it make the content of <pc> impossible: in one case it could contain translatable text, in the other it must be empty. When you have <pc id='1'/> how do you know which case it is? It simply feels wrong to use the same element for very different semantic: mark a span in one case, mark a boundary in the other. If <sc>/<ec> cannot be used I'd rather use <ph> for marking non-well-formed spans. I see your point: one could *argue* to use <pc> instead of <sc>/<ec> :) We could discuss this for some time, but I just wanted to know how you were seeing this. Let's keep the focus on the ballot proposal: whether or not <pc> should be offered in addition to another mechanism for non-well-formed spans. Cheers, -yves --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-inline-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-inline-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]