xliff message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Opinion: importance of preserving XML markup and nodes
- From: <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com>
- To: <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:28:36 -0700
Title: Message
Hello all,
I have an opinion to share regarding the representation of inline
elements. This opinion is relevant to the discussion between the XLIFF TC and
our TMX partners in our exploration of moving toward a common markup
strategy.
I strongly believe that when representing XML, it
is important (critical) that the XML is preserved as XML, and that nodes are
preserved as nodes. It is my opinion that XLIFF and TMX elements need to
be able to be processed by XML means (i.e., XSLT) natively and directly as
XML.
My difficulty begins in the second paragraph of 4.1
(Overview):
"At present, the best way to deal with these native
codes in general is to delimit them by a specific set of elements that convey
where they begin and end, and possibly additional information about what they
are (bold, italic, footnote, etc.). (Note, however, that in some cases inline
content markup may be left unencapsulated to meet specific needs. Guidance about
how best to represent markup for specific needs and cases is beyond the scope of
this standard.)"
This strikes me as being to accommodating to
non-XML-aware TM tools, at the expense of enabling reasonable XML processing by
XML-aware tools.
So when I read section 4.2, it seemed to me that
the spec is saying there are basically two ways of representing inline elements
in TMX (I know there three variations in 4.2.1, and four variations in 4.2.2 -
but I think they boil down to the two following instructions):
If this is my source
<p>
<b>XML</b> is a
general-purpose <i>specification</i>
for creating
custom markup languages.
</p>
It seems to me the new TMX standard prescribes only
the following two recommendations:
<seg>
<itag pos="start" x="1"
type="b"><b></itag>XML
<itag pos="end" x="1"
/></b></itag> is a general-purpose
<itag
pos="start" x="2" type="i"><i>specification
<itag
pos="end" x="2" /></i></itag>
for creating custom
markup languages.
</seg>
<seg>
<itag pos="start"
x="1" type="b" />XML
<itag pos="end" x="1" /> is a
general-purpose
<itag pos="start" x="2"
type="i">specification
<itag pos="end" x="2" />
for
creating custom markup languages.
</seg>
I really think each of them is bad.
I think the following is a much better way (and, at
least on the XLIFF side, I will advocate strongly for this):
<seg>
<itag type="b"
x="1">XML</itag> is a general-purpose
<itag
type="i" x="1">specification</itag>
for creating custom
markup languages.
</seg>
Let me be clear. My point is strictly
about preserving nodes here. It is not related to my other favorite
topics, like my dislike for escaping XML (<p>), or my dislike for
shaping a standard to inordinately accommodate tools that create malformed
XML. I'd be happy to talk about those topics, but
not as part of this thread.
Maybe I'm the only one who feels so strongly
about preserving XML nodes. Let's see what others
think.
Thanks,
Bryan
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]