[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: [xliff-inline] XLIFF Inline Markup Subcommittee Teleconference - Dec-13-2011 - Summary
> -----Original Message----- > From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf > Of Yves Savourel > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:04 AM > To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xliff] RE: [xliff-inline] XLIFF Inline Markup Subcommittee > Teleconference - Dec-13-2011 - Summary > > Regarding the thread on <sc>/<ec> > (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-inline/201112/msg00031.html) > Moving it to the main list for Rodolfo. > > >>> Rodolfo: > >>> As Bryan says, we should not allow having <sc> and the corresponding > >>> <ec> in the same segment. The use of <sc>/<ec> pair should be > >>> reserved only for tags that start and end in different segments. > >> > >> Andrew: > >> Just to be clear, is it agreed that <sc>/<ec> should also be used for > >> overlapping markup? > > > > Rodolfo: > > There is no need to use <sc>/<ec> for overlapping markup. > > Currently we have: > > - <ph> is for standalone codes (e.g. <br/>) > - <pc> is for well-formed span-like codes. > - <sc>/<ec> are for non-well-formed span-like codes. Hi, From Bryan's message, I understood that <sc>/<ec> would only be used when start and end codes appear in different segment. Non-well-formed span-like codes are a rare case these days. Using an overloaded <ph> may be enough. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya rmraya@maxprograms.com Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]