Hi,
I don’t see how using only <g> and <x/> would be a step forward for non XML source formats. Unless the <x> tag is greatly extended with additional attributes
like the <itag> that was proposed for TMX 2.0. Consider this old style HTML example:
This <b> is traditional <i>HTML</b> with overlap</i>.
It can of course be tagged using <x> tags but we then lose all information on the pairing of the native codes like this:
This <x id=”1” /> is traditional <x id=”2” />HTML<x id=”3” /> with overlap<x id=”4” />.
Using <g> is not possible since the result would not be XML.
Regards,
Fredrik Estreen
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Arle Lommel
Sent: den 26 oktober 2011 22:53
To: Andrzej Zydron
Cc:
Subject: Re: [xliff] [xliff-inline] Representing information for the starting/ending/standalone parts
I wasn't arguing to use <itag>, but rather to look at it for anything useful that might help.
-Arle
On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:33 , Andrzej Zydron wrote:
Hi Arle,
Of Rodolfo's stunning brilliance I have no doubt, but on reflection my personal choice would not be to invent yet another element when we already have <g> and <x/>. Everyone involved with XLIFF knows what these are and what they mean and they have the
added benefit of being backwards compatible with all versions of XLIFF and even OpenTag.
Best Regards,
Andrzej Zydroń
