[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] <sm/> and <em/>
+1 on that interpretation, as we discussed.
I’ll update the Okapi library verification to catch orphan sm and em.
(Currently they don’t yield any error).
Thanks, David, I understand (and agree with) the rigidity of the 2.0 standard. So, if I understand your intent below, is it fair to say that most likely because of this section: 22.214.171.124 Splitting Annotations
Orphan <sm> and <em> are not allowed because:
1) As stated in that section: Annotations can overlap spanning inline codes or other annotations. They also can be split by segmentation. Because of this, **a single** annotation span can be represented using **a pair** of <sm> and <em> elements instead of a single <mrk> element.
2) It is, therefore, implicitly understood that orphaning is not allowed because of the asterisks added above and the fact that there is no further mention of how to deal with orphaned tags.
Is that correct?
From: David Filip [mailto:email@example.com]
Hi Ryan, apologies, I haven't answered yet.
Finally, I want to clarify - and I said the same in the last meeting (not sure if the minutes are out yet) - that it is impossible to change XLIFF 2.0.
On Feb 23, 2016 02:15, "Ryan King" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: