+1
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
From: Robert van Engelen [mailto:engelen@genivia.com]
Sent: 01 March 2017 02:08
To: Chase Tingley <chase@spartansoftwareinc.com>
Cc: Phil Ritchie <phil.ritchie@vistatec.com>; xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff-omos] Feedback on JLIFF examples: aesthetics
For consistency it would be an improvement to add “groups”, “units”, and “subunits” in addition to “group”, “unit”, and “subunit”. Same as “notes” and “note”, which are already part of the schema.
Dr. Robert van Engelen, CEO/CTO Genivia Inc.
voice: (850) 270 6179 ext 104
fax: (850) 270 6179
mobile: (850) 264 2676
engelen@genivia.com
On Feb 28, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Chase Tingley <chase@spartansoftwareinc.com> wrote:
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:
|
Direct:
Email:
|
ISO 9001
|
ISO 13485
|
EN 15038
Think Global