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

[dcpleland@ftnetwork.com]

Hi Jonathan;

Your text of 26 January 2002 came to my browser-based email client looking like this:

**************
If xml:lang for is to specify the language of non /
content then I'd agree that we should make the xml:lang attribute mandatory
for /. This should remove any temptation to interpret the
xml:lang as the default for .
**************

It seems that there are bits missing.  Could you please re-send as plain text?

Thanks in advance,
David L

************************************************************
Jonathan_Clark@lionbridge.com wrote on 1/26/02 12:07:05 AM
************************************************************
If xml:lang for <xliff> is to specify the language of non <source>/<target>
content then I'd agree that we should make the xml:lang attribute mandatory
for <source>/<target>.  This should remove any temptation to interpret the
<xliff> xml:lang as the default for <source>.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric D. Friedman [mailto:eric@etranslate.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 6:28 PM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: more comments on the DTD


On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Yves Savourel wrote:

> >>>>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.
> >
> >Then, in the interest of simplification, let's not have it present on 
> ><source> and <target> at all and require it to be present at the 
> ><xliff> level.
>
> We cannot do that :) We can have only one xml:lang in <xliff>, and we 
> have two languages to identify: one for <source> and one for <target>.

OK, that makes sense.  Then let's have the xml:lang on xliff be the language
of the xliff document itself and >require< xml:lang on source/target
elements.

My goal here is to make it as easy as possible to read an XLIFF document, no
matter who writes it.  Optional (but significant!) markup is at odds with
that goal.

Eric


----------------------------------------------------------------
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