RE: [xliff-inline] Splitting non-clonable codes

I understand Fredrik's requirement but may, like Andrew noted, we are going too far?

It seems that adding the complexity of additional processing expectations to help tools that can't deal with lesser complexity is a bit illogical.

We are already adding some complications with <pc>--I have to admit that the more I look at the specification and my test code, the more it seems half of it exists just to accommodate <pc>--we should avoid adding more.

We should assume that the tools will implement the core markup properly. If we think there is a real danger that some tools will not because it's too complex, then maybe the solution is not to add workaround, but to review the complexity of the markup.

Cheers,
-yves