Re: [xliff-omos] Feedback on JLIFF examples: aesthetics

xliff-omos message

I think this is fine, since what these names refer to is not the object themselves, but the array of the object. XLIFF has no corresponding concept -- <unit> really is a "unit", whereas the corresponding data structure in JLIFF is an anonymous object inside an array. So calling that array "units" makes sense.

Robert, what do you think?

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Phil Ritchie <phil.ritchie@vistatec.com> wrote:

All

In familiarizing myself with the examples by writing prototype implementations I would find it more natural if the serialization reads like the objects and properties of my model. Would we not name “unit” and “subunit” as plural as they potentially store multiple sub-objects?

Phil

Phil Ritchie
Chief Technology Officer | Vistatec
Vistatec House, 700 South Circular Road,
Kilmainham, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Tel: +353 1 416 8000 | Direct: +353 1 416 8024
Email: phil.ritchie@vistatec.com
www.vistatec.com | ISO 9001 | ISO 13485 | EN 15038
Think Global