RE: csprd02 108: (re: Format Style attributes again)

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Hi Bryan, all,

> I think there is value in keeping the FS module attached 
> to the <notes> element (I think I sent an example in an 
> earlier mail).
> But I agree that it should be removed from the <originalData> element.

The problem with <notes> is that, like <originalData> it's an artificial XLIFF structure. By that I mean that it doesn't need to
exist from the core data model viewpoint. Its sole function is to group <note> elements: It's syntactic sugar. And therefore it
doesn't have necessarily a counterpart when you map the XLIFF data to a tool's data model.


> Yves, could you please provide criteria for when it is too 
> complicated or expensive to preserve FS attributes on <data>?

My opinion is not as strong for <data>. It's related to the way my implementation does the mapping:

The Okapi library does not know specifics about modules/extensions but allows the caller to preserve and manipulate them.

The drawback of that is that the code to store an extension is more expensive than just a string. So I'm being a bit wary about any
place where I see fs:fs/fs:subFs being the sole reason to have an extension point (from the library viewpoint the FS module is an
extension) on an element that, in real-life documents, may have thousand of occurrences.

In other words I'm weighing the cost vs the utility. And (from my viewpoint) in the case of fs on <data> the cost looks quite high
and the utility quite low.

Cheers,
-ys