OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [xliff] Minimum set of container elements for XLIFF 2.0

Hi Bryan,


The specification draft already contains a tree.


If you look at the specification’s tree, you will see that we don’t need <header> or <body>. The element <skeleton> is directly included as optional child of <file>. We don’t need <internal-file> or <external-file>; if there is an internal skeleton, its data goes inside <skeleton>; if there isn’t any data, the location of the external skeleton can be added as attribute in <file>.


BTW, the core XML schema allows XML from any namespace inside <skeleton> as requested in the wiki.


We don’t need <group>. With <unit> as container of multiple <segment> elements we have enough. You can consider that the old <group> is equivalent to the new <unit> and the old <trans-unit> is the equivalent of the new <segment>/<ignorable> pair.




Rodolfo M. Raya       rmraya@maxprograms.com
Maxprograms       http://www.maxprograms.com


From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Schnabel, Bryan S
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:42 PM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] Minimum set of container elements for XLIFF 2.0




I propose that while we are adding/changing features and functions, there is a minimum set of container elements (hierarchy) that we should preserve as framework for XLIFF 2.0. I think that set is: xliff, file, header, skl, internal-file, external-file, body, group, and unit.


(legend: 1 = one

+ = one or more

? = zero or one

* = zero, one or more)





+--- <file>+


+--- <header>?

| |

| +--- <skl>?

|   |

|   +--- <internal-file>?

|   |

 |   +--- <external-file>?



+--- <body>1


+--- <group>*


+--- <unit>*


Of these I can only think that <group> could be controversial. I say that because it is feasible that it could change like <trans-unit> changed into <unit>. But I doubt the concept of grouping will go away.


And while it may be premature to say this, I envision that this will be a core feature (though ranking it as core is not part of this proposal).



Bryan Schnabel
Content Management Architect
Phone: 503.627.5282

TwitterRSS Facebook Tektronix Store

Tektronix Logo


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]