David Pooley wrote:
>>However, under John's proposal, we are suggesting that the
<bx/> and <ex/>
>>tags
should be linked via a non-mandatory attribute. We're are also suggesting
>>linking them together using an attribute which
has a vague description and could
>>be
used for a variety of purposes (including using it as a lookup device in the
>>skeleton file), some of which are references
outside of the <trans-unit>.
First, this
is not my proposal but the way it has been for 1.0. The specification explicitly
says, "The <bx/> element should be followed by a matching <ex/>
element. These paired elements are related via their rid
attributes," and later, "The <ex/> element should be preceded
by a matching <bx/>
element. These paired elements are related via their rid
attributes."
Second, that
the rid is non-mandatory may have come from there being no need for an rid, it
being redundant, in the case that these paired tags are clone="no" and only a
single set occurs in the <source>. Changing this does affect compatibility
with 1.0.
Third, the id
attribute in the 1.0 spec has the meaning being suggested for the rid attribute.
In the definition for the id attribute the spec says, "The id
attribute is used in many elements, as a unique reference to the original
corresponding code data or format for the given
element."
Thus, the
proposal we are talking about is to change the meaning for both the id and rid
attributes. I am simply saying not to change this. I suggest if we are to make
this radical of a change that is is done via a
ballot.
cheers,
john
