Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: Contsraints for start and end markers and codes was: Re: [xliff] RE: Resolution proposal/Call for Dissent Re: [xliff] mrk translate outside the content but in scope
At this point I think we should spend time resolving the numerous technical issues we still have before doing syntactic sugar changes. J
Thanks for making the count Yves,
I know we still have more MUST than REQUIRED formulations in static constraints, this is because they were first thought of as PRs, which they turned out not to really be..
I did not change the formulations globally only where other changes were necessary.. so also in this case I still think the static formulation with REQUIRED is better.
This one had to be completely rehauled, so why not have it right?
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Yves Savourel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Hi David, all,
> This said, I can live with the MUST formulations if you or
Good to know you MAY live with it if you MUST.
In the csp02 draft there is about 17 Constraints sections in the core and 18 in the modules.