Re: [xliff] Content of <sub> element

["Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:03:30 -0400
"Doug Domeny" <ddomeny@ektron.com> wrote:

> In general, an element that allows text wouldn't require it. The P tag
> in HTML doesn't require text according to the schema, but the spec
> recommends browsers to ignore empty P tags.


According to all replies an empty <source/> element is valid, but I
doubt it can be useful.

“The <mrk> element delimits a section of text that has special meaning”
is written in the specs, but if we allow it to be empty, what would be
delimited?

An empty <internal-file/> element would also be valid if we consider an
“embedded file” as text, but does it make sense?

An empty <note/> without attributes would also be allowed, but it would
be meaningless.

I understand the desire to have similarities with other standards, but
I think that HTML is not a good choice for making comparisons. For
example, an empty <p/> has a meaning, as it is used as vertical
separator.

So, I think that there may be elements which could be left empty,
provided that they are useful due to their attributes. However, I think
that elements like <source> or <mrk> should always have content.

Best regards,
Rodolfo