RE: [xliff-comment] Re: [xliff] FW: [xliff-comment] Purpose of name attribute for <context-group>

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

Asgeir,

See my reply below.

Regards,
 
Doug Domeny

-----Original Message-----
From: Asgeir Frimannsson [mailto:asgeirf@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:41 PM
To: Rodolfo M. Raya
Cc: Doug Domeny; xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff-comment] Re: [xliff] FW: [xliff-comment] Purpose of name
attribute for <context-group>

Hi all,
[snip]

I am fully aware about the fact that the current spec enforces
uniqueness on the name attribute, but what I'm after is *a reasoning
behind this* from the XLIFF TC. Why is this strictly enforced now at
1.2, breaking compatibility with all existing examples of named-group
usage in XLIFF TC examples, documents, presentations etc.
Specifically, what was the reasoning behind changing the context-group
'name' attribute to 'optional' and enforcing uniqueness in the schema?

[reply]
The older XLIFF 1.1 spec requires uniqueness on the name attribute. "The
required name attribute uniquely identifies the <context-group> within the
file." This is not really a change. The previous schema simply neglected to
enforce it.