Hi Eric;
On 25 January 2002, you were heard to say:
>Then, in the interest of simplification, let's not have it present on
and at all and require it to be present at the
level.
<dcpl> is there a word missing between 'present at the' and 'level' ?
Regards,
David L
************************************************************
wrote on 1/25/02 11:11:17 PM
************************************************************
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Yves Savourel wrote:
> >> It is strongly recommended to use
> >> xml:lang for <source> and <target> as well, so any XML tools (not just
> >> XLIFF tools) can be language-aware.
> >
> >Why not make this required? Are there any applications that would be
> >harmed by always having an xml:lang attribute specified on source/target
> >elements? I argue that the converse is true and so would like to see
> >xml:lang be a required attribute.
>
> I think we didn't make required because you could avoid to have it for one
> of the two language in the document by specifying the xml:lang at the
> <xliff> level and it would be redundand.
Then, in the interest of simplification, let's not have it present on
<source> and <target> at all and require it to be present at the
<xliff> level.
Eric
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Get your free e-mail account at http://www.ftnetwork.com
Visit the web site of the Financial Times at http://www.ft.com
