RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - RC5

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

Looks good to me.
I would merge the two examples.


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Domeny [mailto:ddomeny@ektron.com]
Sent: Tue, May 06, 2003 9:25 AM
To: ysavourel@translate.com; XLIFF list
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - RC5



Suggested wording for paired inline elements...

Applies to tags: bx, ex, bpt, ept and 2.4 Inline Elements section.

Replace "These paired elements are related via their rid attributes" (occurs
5 times) with:

These paired elements are matched by setting their id attributes to the same
value. For example, <bx id="34"/> ... <ex id="34"/>

-or-

These paired elements are matched by setting their id attributes to the same
value. For example, <bpt id="34"> ... </bpt> ... <ept id="34"> ... </ept>


Regards,

Doug Domeny
Software Analyst

Ektron, Inc.
+1 603 594-0249 x212
http://www.ektron.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 10:47 AM
To: XLIFF list
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - RC5


> My understanding of the rid attribute is the same as described by Doug:
> "(1) <bx id="b1" rid="e1"/> ... <ex id="e1" rid="b1"/>"
> I agree that the rid attribute should be required for bx, ex, bpt, & ept
elements.


But, as Doug pointed out, wouldn't this make 1.1 not compatible with 1.0?

This would also force different id values for <bx/> and <ex/> which, in my
opinion, is not necessary, since after all they are the same code
(<g>...</g> doesn't have 2 id values, why <bx/>...<ex/> should?). From the
programming side it also makes thing more complex: keeping track of 2 values
rather than one. And it also makes the file much bigger and difficult to
read.

<bx id='b1'/>text<ex id='b1'/>

seems much more economique to me (and already in place).

<bx id='b1'/>text<ex rid='b1'/>

would be more logical maybe (except that rid is currently described for
various other tasks that seems somewhat duplicated in xid), and id is
mandatory (maybe that should be modified too, as Doug suggested).

But I agree with Doug and John: we need to have this clarified one way or
the other and some examples.


talk to you soon,
-ys


-----Original Message-----
From: John Reid [mailto:JREID@novell.com]
Sent: Tue, May 06, 2003 8:23 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - RC5