Re: [xliff] Call for dissent: csprd02 101, add requirement to preserve X

Subject: Re: [xliff] Call for dissent: csprd02 101, add requirement to preserve XLIFF-defined attributes (along with elements) and remove fs from <cp>

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

http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452

mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Schnabel, Bryan S <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com> wrote:

Per the two observations Yves made in csprd02 101, “fs attributes,” https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/201309/msg00014.html

- change the PR from “An Agent processing a valid XLIFF Document that contains XLIFF-defined elements that it cannot handle MUST preserve those elements” to “An Agent processing a valid XLIFF Document that contains XLIFF-defined elements and attributes that it cannot handle MUST preserve those elements and attributes.”

And

- remove @fs and @subFs form <cp>

I propose we accept both suggestions.

If I do not receive dissent by the end of the week, I will consider this approved.

Thanks,

Bryan

Subject: csprd02 comment - fs attributes

From: "Yves Savourel" <yves@opentag.com>
To: <xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>

Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:42:24 -0600

Hi all,

There is this PR: "An Agent processing a valid XLIFF Document that contains XLIFF-defined elements that it cannot handle MUST

preserve those elements."

I think the wording of the PR does not correspond to the original intent. There is no mention of XLIFF-defined attributes, which

means that, as of csprd02, I'm not required to preserve any of the Format Style attributes.

It is the intent?

I think the intent was to preserve any XLIFF-defined element or attribute.

So assuming the PR is changed, we would have to preserve fs/subFs attributes. This leads to another issue:

The fs/subFs attributes are allowed on pretty much any element of the core, including <cp>. This means a reader would have be able

to preserve the fs/subFs attributes of a <cp> element.

The <cp> element is an escape mechanism, there is no realistic way to preserve fs/subFs on something that will be converted to a

character in the parsed document.

- if the PR is to protect only elements: nothing to change.

- if it is to protect elements and attributes:

- it needs to be update (and the PR for custom namespaces too)

- fs/subFs should be removed from <cp>

Regards,

-yves

xliff message