Re: RE: [xliff] RE: more comments on the DTD

[dcpleland@ftnetwork.com]

Hi Yves;

On 25 January, you were heard to say:

>I think we didn't make required because you could avoid to have it for one
of the two language in the document by specifying the xml:lang at the
level and it would be redundand. But my memory is fuzzy on that
topic. Other may recall the discussion we had on this.

I suggest that the name for the element should be lengthened to something like 'xml:source-lang' or 'xml:target-lang' [or more appropriately 'xml:target-lang-01'], to avoid the redundancy problem.

Regards,
David L

************************************************************
ysavourel@translate.com wrote on 1/25/02 10:55:45 PM
************************************************************
>> It is strongly recommended to use
>> xml:lang for <source> and <target> as well, so any XML tools (not just
>> XLIFF tools) can be language-aware.
>
>Why not make this required?  Are there any applications that would be
>harmed by always having an xml:lang attribute specified on source/target
>elements?  I argue that the converse is true and so would like to see
>xml:lang be a required attribute.

I think we didn't make required because you could avoid to have it for one
of the two language in the document by specifying the xml:lang at the
<xliff> level and it would be redundand. But my memory is fuzzy on that
topic. Other may recall the discussion we had on this.

-yves


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Get your free e-mail account at  http://www.ftnetwork.com

Visit the web site of the Financial Times at  http://www.ft.com