[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..
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Schnabel, Bryan S <email@example.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:
<xliff xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:2.0" version="2.0" srcLang="en" trgLang="fr">
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.