OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [xliff] 101 - FS attributes is Dec-17 draft


I've updated to add all the editorial improvements we've agreed upon in the resolution of item 101, except the issue around:

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-- I disagree with the text:

[[

Format Style module does not have a fragment identification prefix. Prefix /fs is reserved in case it became needed in the future developments of this module.

]]

Rational: there fragment identification need in this version of the module. If a new version later needs it, its corresponding specification can define the prefix.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

David, I agree with the rationale given by Yves. I would vote to remove:

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5.3.3 Module Fragment Identification Prefix

 

Format Style module does not have a fragment identification prefix. Prefix /fs is reserved in case it became needed in the future developments of this module.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Once we come to agreement I will implement (or not implement) this change.

 

Thanks,

 

Bryan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:19 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] 101 - FS attributes is Dec-17 draft

 

Hi David, all,

 

> Nevertheless, no one seems to disagree that the module prefixes should

> have an nmtoken part identical with their standard namespace prefix,

> in this case fs.

> 

> I do not see why the fs nmtoken should not be reserved.

> Even if this module never develops in a way that would require

> referencing to it, it would be confusing if other modules or

> extensions took the fs nmtoken and used it for their fragment

> identification prefix.

 

-- There is no such thing as a "standard namespace prefix". You cannot enforce a specific prefix for a given namespace or declare that one is the "standard" one. "fs" is just the prefix that happens to be used in the specification for the Format Style module.

It's likely that most will use that prefix, but "standard" to me means something very different.

 

-- In this specification the FS module cannot be used with a fragment reference, so there is no point defining a prefix for it. That would be very confusing.

 

-- The argument of using a single prefix for a given module/extension may not hold across versions: You may get two versions of the same module/extension in the same document.

Nothing prevents for example to have a new version of the Matches module in the specification 2.1 and have documents that have been annotated by different tools with candidates using one the version 2.0 of the Matches module and the other the version 2.1 of the Matches module. If the modules are backward compatible, there is no issue with that scenario.

 

Cheers,

-yves

 

 

 

 

 

From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 5:14 AM

To: Yves Savourel

Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org

Subject: Re: [xliff] 101 - FS attributes is Dec-17 draft

 

Yves, I agree with all comments you made on the current state of the fs module [especially the missing constraints on <ec>, the rest are minor editorial issues] except one, see inline

 

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

-- I disagree with the text:

 

[[

Format Style module does not have a fragment identification prefix. Prefix /fs is reserved in case it became needed in the future developments of this module.

]]

 

Rational: there fragment identification need in this version of the module. If a new version later needs it, its corresponding specification can define the prefix.

 

What exactly will be the prefixes [/fs OR ~fs OR fs= or whatever] obviously depends on the final fragment identification solution we end up having, I do not want to discuss this aspect here.

 

Nevertheless, no one seems to disagree that the module prefixes should have an nmtoken part identical with their standard namespace prefix, in this case fs.

 

I do not see why the fs nmtoken should not be reserved. Even if this module never develops in a way that would require referencing to it, it would be confusing if other modules or extensions took the fs nmtoken and used it for their fragment identification prefix.

 

Thanks and regards

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

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

mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

 

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]