[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 - dF Sanity Check of the spec - question for the editors #001
Thanks Rodolfo, now I do not need to ask separately the question about group and unit handling in the tree separately. Well noted that this is in progress.. Cheers dF Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > The tree needs maintenance. There is also a problem with the way the need > for either a <group> or <unit> is required in <file>. > > There are also other known changes to do in the specs/schemas: > > > Review the elements that accept extensions (in the F2F meeting it was > suggested to remove extensions from <segment>) > Complete the examples marked as "TODO" > Add links in the specification documents to the schemes > Define the members to include in the "Acknowledgements" section (voting > members?, active members?, whom?) > Automate the preparation of a zip package for ballot/upload > > Regards, > Rodolfo > -- > Rodolfo M. Raya > Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 - dF Sanity Check of the spec - question for > the editors #001 > From: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie> > Date: Thu, October 25, 2012 10:56 am > To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > > Hi Rodolfo, Yves, all > > quality checking the spec to see if I can extract a list of processing > requirements validation tests. [However I do not want to discuss this now. > If you wish, please do so in a separate thread.] > > This series of numbered threads is meant to ask a single simple question at > a time. It might happen that they trigger broader discussion but they are > not intended so :-) > > In the tree structures throughout the spec you consistently use > +---<any> + > > IMHO this would mean that implementers must use at least one proprietary > extension at all extension points, which seems odd > > Do we want to say > +---<any> * > throughout the spec? > > Thanks for your attention > dF > > Legend: > 1 = one > + = one or more > ? = zero or one > * = zero, one or more > > > > Dr. David Filip > ======================= > LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS > University of Limerick, Ireland > telephone: +353-6120-2781 > cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 > facsimile: +353-6120-2734 > mailto: david.filip@ul.ie > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To > unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional > commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]