RE: [xliff] Discussion: XLIFF inline elements attribute...

["Doug Domeny" <ddomeny@ektron.com>]

I prefer “lex-equiv”, but “lex-replace” would be OK.

 

Equivalence is more passive, whereas ‘replace’ practically commands the parser to take action and replace the element with the text. Since the primary purpose is to aid word counting, I think ‘lex-equiv’ is less likely to be used for other purposes that might interfere with the word counting algorithm.

 

Regards,

 

Doug Domeny

Software Analyst

 

Ektron, Inc.

+1 603 594-0249 x212

http://www.ektron.com

 

---

From: Tony Jewtushenko [mailto:tony.jewtushenko@productinnovator.com]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:05 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] Discussion: XLIFF inline elements attribute...

 

As per discussion proposed by Andzrej:

 

XLIFF inline elements with spacial characteristics: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200603/msg00001.html

Response from Florian: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200603/msg00005.html

Response from Andzrej: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200603/msg00006.html

 

We need to select an appropriate name for the attribute.  Suggestions so far are:

 

·         rawreplace

·         textequivalent

·         textapproximation

·         subst

·         equiv

·         equiv-lex

·         lev-equiv

·         lex-replace

Please submit opinions on which suggestions are not suitable (ie.,  should not be considered),  and any new additions.  I would like to submit a ballot on Tuesday with a recommendation.

Regards,

Tony

 

Tony Jewtushenko

Director- R&D - Product Innovator Ltd. (Ireland)

P: +353.1.8875183; M: +353.87.2479057; W: www.productinnovator.com