I prefer “lex-equiv”, but “lex-replace”
would be OK.
Equivalence is more passive, whereas ‘replace’
practically commands the parser to take action and replace the element with the
text. Since the primary purpose is to aid word counting, I think ‘lex-equiv’
is less likely to be used for other purposes that might interfere with the word
counting algorithm.
Regards,
Doug Domeny
Software Analyst
Ektron, Inc.
+1 603 594-0249 x212
http://www.ektron.com
From: Tony
Jewtushenko [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:05
AM
To:
Subject: [xliff] Discussion: XLIFF
inline elements attribute...
As per
discussion proposed by Andzrej:
XLIFF
inline elements with spacial characteristics: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200603/msg00001.html
Response
from Florian: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200603/msg00005.html
Response
from Andzrej: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200603/msg00006.html
We need to select an
appropriate name for the attribute. Suggestions so far are:
·
rawreplace
·
textequivalent
·
textapproximation
·
subst
·
equiv
·
equiv-lex
·
lev-equiv
·
lex-replace
Please
submit opinions on which suggestions are not suitable (ie., should not be
considered), and any new additions. I would like to submit a ballot
on Tuesday with a recommendation.
Regards,
Tony
Tony Jewtushenko
Director- R&D - Product
Innovator Ltd. (Ireland)
P: +353.1.8875183; M:
+353.87.2479057; W: www.productinnovator.com
