Subject: RE: [xliff] Call for dissent: csprd02 129 ignorable and fs (RE: Call for dissent: csprd02 )
This seems to have posted three hours after I mailed it. In the meantime Yves and David already resolved this issue.
Please ignore this email (pun unintended).
I think David was not referring to the content of <ignorable>. I think he was talking about ignoring its content and just using its presence as a placeholder for an HTML preview formatting device. For example (admittedly clunky):
For this input:
<unit id="1" xmlns:fs="fs" fs:fs="p">
<source fs:fs="b">First sentence.</source>
<target fs:fs="i">Première phrase.</target>
<source><!-- some RTF code "\par\par" --></source>
<source fs:fs="b">Second sentence.</source>
Apply this XSL:
<xsl:template match="*" priority="2">
<xsl:template match="comment()" priority="3" />
And get this preview:
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.
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?
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Schnabel, Bryan S <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Just resending this with an improved Subject line to enhance findability. CFD unchanged.
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.
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.