OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


David Pooley wrote:
>>However, under John's proposal, we are suggesting that the <bx/> and <ex/>
>>tags should be linked via a non-mandatory attribute. We're are also suggesting
>>linking them together using an attribute which has a vague description and could
>>be used for a variety of purposes (including using it as a lookup device in the
>>skeleton file), some of which are references outside of the <trans-unit>.
 
First, this is not my proposal but the way it has been for 1.0. The specification explicitly says, "The <bx/> element should be followed by a matching <ex/> element. These paired elements are related via their rid attributes," and later, "The <ex/> element should be preceded by a matching <bx/> element. These paired elements are related via their rid attributes."
 
Second, that the rid is non-mandatory may have come from there being no need for an rid, it being redundant, in the case that these paired tags are clone="no" and only a single set occurs in the <source>. Changing this does affect compatibility with 1.0.
 
Third, the id attribute in the 1.0 spec has the meaning being suggested for the rid attribute. In the definition for the id attribute the spec says, "The id attribute is used in many elements, as a unique reference to the original corresponding code data or format for the given element."
 
Thus, the proposal we are talking about is to change the meaning for both the id and rid attributes. I am simply saying not to change this. I suggest if we are to make this radical of a change that is is done via a ballot.
 
cheers,
john


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]