RE: [xliff] Call for dissent on implementing the general properties sub-properties solution, re csprd 01 comments 021 and 053

[Ryan King <ryanki@microsoft.com>]

David, the only contention I have with the PR is that I could potentially have the same subState value for different state values. In this particular case, as long as I don’t have to actually “delete” and “reset” the same value in subState when state changes (e.g. it can be considered an “invisible update” as you pointed out on another thread) then I’m OK with it.

 

Ryan

 

From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 12:27 PM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] Call for dissent on implementing the general properties sub-properties solution, re csprd 01 comments 021 and 053

 

Hi all,

 

As explained in today's meeting, for all property attributes in the spec that have a sub-property specified, such as fs and subFs, state and subState etc.

I have implemented a uniform provision consisting of a Contsraint and a PR

 

See it here e.g. for state and subState

Constraints

·        If the attribute subState is used, the attribute state MUST be specified as well.

Processing Requirements

·        If the attribute state is updated, the attribute subState MUST be updated or deleted.

 

Unless I hear otherwise by Thu, Aug 10, COB PDT, I will consider this our official resolution of the pertaining csprd01 comments.

 

Best regards

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