Hi Yves;
On 25 January, you were heard to say:
>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
level and it would be redundand. But my memory is fuzzy on that
topic. Other may recall the discussion we had on this.
I suggest that the name for the element should be lengthened to something like 'xml:source-lang' or 'xml:target-lang' [or more appropriately 'xml:target-lang-01'], to avoid the redundancy problem.
Regards,
David L
************************************************************
wrote on 1/25/02 10:55:45 PM
************************************************************
>> 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. But my memory is fuzzy on that
topic. Other may recall the discussion we had on this.
-yves
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
