[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Proposal for a <group> element
> From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 12:57 PM > To: Rodolfo M. Raya > Cc: Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [xliff] Proposal for a <group> element > > Dear Rodolfo, although I tend to philosophically agree that a singleton does not constitute a group, > I think that we cannot prevent authors of source content from creating hierarchies containing > just one element at some levels. > > IMHO, enforcing 2 child elements for group could be potentially harmful for intuitive representations. > > This leads me to the idea that we could also consider empty groups, just a thought, not sure about this one.. David, We can and we should enforce at least two children. We are the ones making the XLIFF specification. If you want empty groups or groups with just one element, then don't talk about "grouping". Find another name for the new element and another justification for adding it. If the idea is to "group" things then there should be at least two things to be grouped. If the intention is not just "grouping" then we need a clarification and probably a new feature request should be added in section two of the wiki. The name of the feature we voted and approved is "Grouping of entries", not "General container". 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]