Hi Yves,
The <ph> is missing from option b's wording. I think is best to write it out in the ballot text.
Regards,
Fredrik Estreen
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: den 13 december 2011 18:14
To:
Subject: [xliff-inline] Type of inline codes - ballot
Hi Bryan,
> I wanted very much to attend this meeting
> ... But an unexpected work emergency kept me
> otherwise occupied (sounds strange that one
> could have a Web CMS emergency...
> ...
> Though the attendees spoke in favor of b) - I
> just wanted to add that there was also a strong
> argument made against b) in the email thread
> (and in the interest of full disclosure, I
> am included in that camp). See
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-inline/201112/msg00008.html
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-inline/201112/msg00004.html
> So I am grateful that the action is to have a ballot.
Since I didn't took the time to do it during the meeting:
I move to have the following ballot:
----------
How should inline codes should be represented. Essentially this is to decide if span-like code can be represented with span-like element in XLIFF 2.0. In addition this also decides if sc/ec should be a special case of ph.
a) ph for placeholder codes (e.g <br>)
pc for well-formed span-like codes (e.g <b>...<.b>)
sc/ec for span-like codes that are not well-formed.
b) no pc: all span-like codes (well-formed and not well-formed) are represented with sc/ec
c) sc/ec are represented as special cases of ph, well-formed span-like codes are represented with pc
d) everything is represented with ph
----------
Can someone second?
The ballot will be open until Jan-9th, the day before our next meeting, so people have plenty of time.
We have 7 voting members based on the attendance. Because there are 4 choices, we could have no decision. In that case will do a run-off.
Cheers,
-yves
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
