RE: [xliff] Re csprd01 comment 006 was: Fwd: what was our position on co

Hi David, Fredrik, all,

Just curious, but what is the rationale for enforcing an order of elements (sorry if I missed it in a discussion somewhere)?

Regarding the structure you have below, David:

1. I believe the ballot passed to remove <gls:glossary> from <file>.

2. [Removed modules and extensions from segment, anticipating the resegmentation solution] I believe <notes> needs to be removed from <segment> as well.

3. Do we want to leave <mda:metadata> on <ignorable>? Or do we want to have mechanism for an <mda:metadata> on the <unit> to reference <ignorable> to be consistent with other types of module referencing that we need to introduce for <segment>?

Ryan

From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:10 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org; Estreen, Fredrik; Sean Mooney
Subject: [xliff] Re csprd01 comment 006 was: Fwd: what was our position on core, modules, extensions order in XLIFF 2.0?

Hi Fredrik, all,

regarding the order of core, module, and extension elements I propose the following solution by Sean Mooney, who will join the TC on behalf of LRC early next month

If an order is to be enforced it would be preferable if non core element came either first or last.

currently both group and unit allow any element to be placed after all core elements but not file, which allows any element to be placed after the modules but before group or unit.

my suggestion for the ordering would be to match it up with the ordering within group and unit where
xliff core elements appear first,
followed by the core modules,
followed by any namespace element.

this would give the following structure: [Reemoved modules and extensions from segment, anticipating the resegmentation solution]

<xliff> 1

+---<file> +

     +---<skeleton> ?

     +---<gls:glossary> ?

     +---<mda:metadata> ?

     +---<res:resourceData> *

     +---<slr:profile> ?

     +---<val:validation> ?

     +--- At least one of (<group>* or <unit>*)

     +---<group> *

     |   |

     |   +--- At least one of (<group>* or <unit>*)

     |   |

     |   +---<mda:metadata> ?

     |   |

     |   +---<val:validation> ?

     |   |

     |   +---<any> *

     +---<unit> *

     |   |

     |   +---<segment> +

     |   |   |

     |   |   +---<source> 1

     |   |   |

     |   |   +---<target> ?

     |   |   |

     |   |   +---<notes> ?

     |   |   |    |

     |   |   |    +---<note> +

     |   |   |

     |   |

     |   +---<ignorable> *

     |   |   |

     |   |   +---<source> 1

     |   |   |

     |   |   +---<target> ?

     |   |   |

     |   |   +---<mda:metadata> ?

     |   |

     |   +---<notes> ?

     |   |   |

     |   |   +---<note> +

     |   |

     |   +---<originalData> ?

     |   |       |

     |   |       +---<data> +

     |   |

     |   +---<mtc:matches> ?

     |   |

     |   +---<gls:glossary> ?

     |   |

     |   +---<mda:metadata> ?

     |   |

     |   +---<ctr:changeTrack> ?

     |   |

     |   +---<val:validation> ?

     |   |

     |   +---<any> *

     +---<any> *

On 26/06/2013 13:08, Dr. David Filip wrote:

Did you want all extended elements come last?

Thanks

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

xliff message