Re: [xliff] SC feedback: Uniqueness of attribute names

[Helena S Chapman <hchapman@us.ibm.com>]

I personally prefer using simpler names
and leverage context to determine how it applies.



From:      
 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
To:      
 <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:      
 12/20/2011 06:52 AM
Subject:    
   [xliff] SC feedback:
Uniqueness of attribute names
Sent by:    
   <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Hi everyone,

During the last inline SC meeting we talked about uniqueness of attribute
names.

Version 1.2 had, most of the time, attributes with different names when
their value/semantics were different. For example we have <ph ctype>
and <mrk mtype>, not <ph type> and <mrk type>. both represent
'type' information but with different descriptions and possible values.

There was a consensus in the SC that it would be more in line with common
practices to use simpler names even when they have different definitions
and let the context (the element) mak the distinction. One example was
HTML5 where 'options' has different values/definitions depending in which
element is it.

The SC felt that this needs to be decided soon by the TC, as even if names
don't need to be finalized yet, this impact how the specification document
is constructed.

Cheers,
-yves




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org