[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Assume elements without IDs cannot have FragIDs
Thanks David. In retrospect, I wish we’d made IDs required on <segment>. Not a huge deal. From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]
Bryan, this is a correct assumption Although we don't say so, it follows from the spec We can add a note or warning at a later stage if we feel so because it changes nothing there was discussion about this, I wanted modules to have fragids even w/o ids but we agreed that it would require a wildcard mechanism and discarded the idea all together. Who wants fragids must use/add ids. BTW, this is also why we made group ids required..
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 mailto:
david.filip@ul.ie On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Schnabel, Bryan S <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com> wrote: Looking at “3 Fragment Identification” I do not see an explicit statement that “elements without IDs cannot have FragIDs.” For example the segment below has no ID: <?xml version="1.0"?> <xliff xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:2.0" version="2.0" srcLang="en" trgLang="fr"> <file id="f1"> <unit id="1"> <segment> <source>source</source> <target>target</target> </segment> </unit> </file> </xliff> We imply this in 3.1 Selectors for Core Elements “No prefix indicates an id for a <segment> or an <ignorable> or an inline element in the <source> element and the value of that id is unique within the enclosing <unit> element
(with the exception of the matching inline elements in the <target>).” No action requested. I think the spec is fine for now. I just wanted to see if my assumption is true. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]