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: csprd01 comments 11 and 41

Hi all,


This is in regard to csprd01 comments 11 and 41, concerning the possible conflict between values of the state and approved attributes for the segment element.


A segment may have state="initial", in which case we should expect approved="no". Similarly, if approved="yes" it implies that the state must be "translated" and "reviewed"; else approval is not possible. A segment that has state="final" should never have approved="no". This situation is ambiguous and leaves it to implementers and ultimately to processing agents to interpret conflicting values; i.e. by giving priority to one or the other of the attributes.


Here's how I interpret these conditions; please let me know if you disagree. First, if a segment state="translated" then it's subject to review, so cannot yet have been approved. If the segment state="final" then it must have been approved. What remains unclear in my mind is the intent of state="reviewed": does this imply approved="yes"? If so, then the approved attribute correlates directly with a specific value of the state attribute and is superfluous. On the other hand, if we can have state="reviewed" and it can be either approved or not approved, then we need processing requirements to resolve the ambiguity.


There are several possible ways to resolve the conflict between these two attributes:


1. add a processing requirement to prohibit inconsistent combinations of the state and approved attributes

2. add a processing requirement that the approved attribute applies if and only if state="reviewed"

3. expand the list of values for the state attribute to clarify the distinction between reviewed/unapproved and reviewed/approved, and drop the approved attribute

4. clarify the meaning(s) in the values of the state attribute, and drop the approved attribute


Of these, I think (3) and (4) are less likely to result in ambiguity, though any of them will clarify to implementers the intent of these attribute values. Comments, clarifications and critiques welcome.







Tom Comerford

+1 856 787 9090


Supratext LLC
43 Michaelson Drive
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054




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