Agreed. Using <pc> where you should use the more semantically sensible <sc>/<ec> is ugly. And the point of my ever-so-long-winded rant is that I see <sc>/<ec> equally ugly for 90% of the cases.
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:32 PM
To: Schnabel, Bryan S;
Subject: RE: [xliff-inline] XLIFF Inline Markup Subcommittee Teleconference - Dec-13-2011 - Summary
Hi Bryan,
> By using the id/idref pair you know
> that any <pc> with an id is essentially <sc>.
> And any <pc> with and idref is essentially <ec>.
I see. The thing I would not like at all with such solution is that it make the content of <pc> impossible: in one case it could contain translatable text, in the other it must be empty. When you have <pc id='1'/> how do you know which case it is?
It simply feels wrong to use the same element for very different semantic: mark a span in one case, mark a boundary in the other. If <sc>/<ec> cannot be used I'd rather use <ph> for marking non-well-formed spans.
I see your point: one could *argue* to use <pc> instead of <sc>/<ec> :) We could discuss this for some time, but I just wanted to know how you were seeing this. Let's keep the focus on the ballot proposal: whether or not <pc> should be offered in addition to another mechanism for non-well-formed spans.
Cheers,
-yves
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
