Hi Yves, et al,
- My point about section 3.2.2 also relates to #8 where I suggest a
resectioning of the elements. There are other named groups than those listed and
it doesn't really need to be a separate section (IMO). My #8 point is "I've
never liked the order I gave the spec." This is not important but I do
think it could be reordered a bit, if you agree.
- I guess the origin attribute would be enumerated with the 'this-file'
attribute value. Maybe this isn't such a good idea? Can you think of a way to
implement this concept?
- I had suggested the tu-state attribute with
values "needs-translation", "needs-review", "needs-resizing",
"translation-approved", and "sizing-approved" be added to
<trans-unit>. There could be multiple values. I don't like tu-state but I
think it was approved.
- The above naming was suggested to distinguish it from the state attribute
of the <target>. The 'TM-Suggestion', 'MT Suggestion',
'Rejected-Inaccurate', 'Rejected-Spelling', 'Rejected-Grammar',
'Rejected-Length' values were approved for the state attribute.
- Maybe we should clarify this better in the meeting ... Should
<trans-unit> have the state attribute with "translation-approved" and
"sizing-approved" values added? Should a different attribute be added to
<target> with the suggested values? Would this make more sense?
- How is 'kenavo' pronounced?
cheers,
john
