[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] Call for dissent on implementing the general properties sub-properties solution, re csprd 01 comments 021 and 053
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.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 12:27 PM
Subject: [xliff] Call for dissent on implementing the general properties sub-properties solution, re csprd 01 comments 021 and 053
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
Unless I hear otherwise by Thu, Aug 10, COB PDT, I will consider this our official resolution of the pertaining csprd01 comments.