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-comment] Re: [xliff] Version Control Commit by DavidFilip

Hi Yves, all, just to look a bit more what was done on CTRM today:

<orginalData> moved onto <revision>

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Yves <yves@opentag.com> wrote:

- Make datetime a required attribute. A history without date/time is a lot less useful, and datetime is easy to set for any tool.



- Get rid of currentVersion: If "the most current version of a revision" means "the latest", then a required datetime takes care of this, without having to maintain an extra attribute (and a bunch of PRs). Or maybe I'm missing the point of this attribute.



- Let's not allow to track individual inline codes. I don't think anyone has made that requirement. It would also make things complicated for interoperability since you would have different ways to track them (individually or in content).



- Add a constraint saying the property values of <item> must be unique within a given <revision>.




- It seems we are having too many ways to track the same thing. And/or we try to do too much.

I think this is now well addressed. It defines Content Types A, B, C, and D

A is needed to track unit content
B or C is needed to track segment or ignorable content
D is enough to track source, target, note and attributes
Additionally, inlines are prohibited when tracking note or attributes

The content level is really given by not having unhandled orphaned codes. 

Cheers and thanks

Dr. David Filip
OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer
Spokes Research Fellow
ADAPT Centre
KDEG, Trinity College Dublin
Mobile: +420-777-218-122

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