[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Call for dissent: csprd02 129 ignorable and fs (RE: Call for dissent: csprd02 )
Hi David, If there is an HTML “<br/>” element in <ignorable> it better be in a <data> associated with a <ph>. And the <ph> can have an fs:fs. Cheers, -yves From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip Hi Bryan, Yves, while I agree that there is no need for fs on em, becuase there will always be a corresponding sm within a unit to karry the fs info Why not to have it on ignorable, the ignorable could e.g. be made <br/> or what not.. So sure the list needs to agree with the set of elements that actually allow it, but why not ignorable? Cheers 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 On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Schnabel, Bryan S <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com> wrote: Just resending this with an improved Subject line to enhance findability. CFD unchanged. From: Schnabel, Bryan S I checked and Yves is correct <ignorable> and <em> do not have FS attributes. I propose removing them from the list of elements in the FS section. If I do not receive dissent by the end of the week I will consider this approved. Thanks, Bryan 129: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/201310/msg00015.html ignorable and fs Hi all, The section describing the fs:fs attribute says: "Used in: <file>, <unit>, <ignorable>, <notes>, <note>, <originalData>, <data>, <cp>, <sc>, <ec>, <ph>, <pc>, <mrk>, <sm> and <em>." It's incorrect: <ignorable>, <em> do not have fs attributes. Regards, -yves |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]