Teleconference - Aug-10-2010 - 13:30 UTC

I have no problem with changing that bit in the example. I had it that
way only because I wasn't presuming any specific sort of structure, not
because I thought it should look that way.


-Arle


On 8/11/10 5:43 PM, sic scripsit Yves Savourel:

  
  
  

  
  We
can certainly make sure to use a more XML-like notation for
the example.
  
  
  
  From:

[mailto:]

  Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:08 PM

  To: ; Yves Savourel;


  Subject: RE: [xliff-inline] Teleconference - Aug-10-2010 -
13:30 UTC -
Minutes
  
  
  
  Hi
all,
  
  I
like the new wording for a). 
  
  And
I know the example was not meant to be included in the
actual requirements. But if we were going to include an example, I
would make a
case to make it also comply with requirement 18 (which I recently
proposed),
that says for well-formed XML input that does not span segments (like
this
sample, "I like <i>italics</i>."), it is best practice to
preserve the inline XML element as an XML node.
  
  So
I would rather see an example of the XLIFF that preserves the
node.
  
  Not
like this:
  XLIFF:
I like <XLIFFtagOfSomeSort/>italics<XLIFFtagOfSomeSort/>.
  
  But
rather like this:
  XLIFF:
I like
<XLIFFtagOfSomeSort>italics</XLIFFtagOfSomeSort>.
  
  Now
if the source was, say, RTF:
  {\insrsid12611904
\hich\af35\dbch\af11\loch\f35 I
like
}
  {\i\insrsid12611904\charrsid12611904
\hich\af35\dbch\af11\loch\f35
  italics}
  {\insrsid11469172
\par }
  
  I'd
be less picky about preserving the inline as an XML node.
  
  I
know my hair-splitting is off-topic for requirement 12.
Forgive me for trying to set the stage for requirement 18.
  
  Thanks,
  
  Bryan
  
  
  
  
  From:
Arle Lommel [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arle
Lommel

  Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:04 AM

  To: Yves Savourel; 

  Subject: Re: [xliff-inline] Teleconference - Aug-10-2010 -
13:30 UTC -
Minutes
  
  
  
  Yves, on further
consideration, how
about we rephrase point A as:


a) to store only the XLIFF representation, discarding the native data


I think this is clearer, because it's not really that we're just
discarding everything,
as in the following:


Source: I like <i>italics</i>.

XLIFF: I like italics.


But rather going for something like this:


XLIFF: I like
<XLIFFtagOfSomeSort/>italics<XLIFFtagOfSomeSort/>.


The existing text could imply the former as well as the latter
possibility.


-Arle


On 8/10/10 10:51 AM, sic scripsit Yves Savourel: 
  Requirement #12: (was #10, #11, and #12)