RE: [xliff] Discussion re csprd03 209

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Hi David,

From the schema viewpoint Tom sent this:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201402/msg00037.html


As for what value to use: I guess the element names would be fine.
Not sure if it's wise to have a list.

For my concern about the case of deletion.
I think I was reading too much into the definition, thinking the element *had to exist* to be a valid value. But the text can be
interpreted also as an element *could* be there.

So, Tom's fix looks enough for me.
-yves



From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:23 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] Discussion re csprd03 209

Yves, Tom, all
I just realized that I co-own this issue.
[Sorry I was filtering DavidF only so I missed this one that says David..]

AFAIK change track inconsistently re-uses the core appliesTo. As of now I haven't formed an opinion how to best fix that with
minimum impact. 

@Tom, did you make any schema changes to alleviate that so far?
@Yves, any suggestions how to best fix that with minimum impact?

Will look into it in more detail shortly, but any more input appreciated

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