RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - RC 5

["Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>]

> 2.4 Inline Elements
> "These paired elements are related via their rid attributes."
> I'm not sure how to use the rid attribute. Is the rid attribute set
> to the value of the id attribute in the corresponding element? An
> example would be very helpful.

Actually, I'm also a little lost with that one too. I thought <bpt> and
<ept>, as well as <bx/> and <ex/> were linked with their id attributes. The
rid attribute is optional, id is mandatory. If you have more than 2 <bpt>
elements, each <ept> must have a relation back to to opening counterpart,
since id is the only mandatory attribute in <ept> it makes sense to use it
(otherwise you end up with 99% of duplication between id and rid).

I also see a problem in "Use the required id attribute to relate begin and
end <g> tags." for the use of <g>. This cannot be done as there are no
attribute in a closing tag. You always know which <g> element you are
closing. I would use <g> for place-holder, and <bx/>/<ex/> only when they
are overlapping codes.



> 2.5.2 Adding Attributes
> In the example, the <trans-unit id> attributes
> all have the value '1'. They should be different.

Oops, that one has been there for some time: my fault: a copy/paste gone
bad.



I would also add one comment on section 2 General structure.
The end of the new paragraph about the use of xml:lang reads:
"The xml:lang attribute should not be used in those elements. The exception
is that <source> and <target> elements that are children of <alt-trans> may
contain an xml:lang attribute of a different language than that of the
source-language and target-language attributes of the <file> element."

I know I'm too late to change things, but I'd like to say something for the
record:

I rather disagree with this: I think it would set a bad example and
precedent to have a guideline going against XML internationalization
practices. What we probably should say is that the values of xml:lang are
expected to be the same as for the source-language and target-language,
except in the case described. But saying xml:lang *should not* be use seems
harmful: what if a XML-enabled but not XLIFF-enabled tool needs the language
code? (like a spell-checker).

In addition, such new guideline also contradicts the wording we have already
decided (long ago) for source-language and target-language): "The source
language can be also specified by xml:lang in each <source> element. The
value of source-language and xml:lang can be different to allow having
different source languages if necessary (for example in an <alt-trans>
element)."

Just a thought.

kenavo,
-yves