Hi Jung, Fredrik, all,
> The sentence in 2.6.7.1 should be removed. Or reworded to
> say that the user agent may leave the segment without a target.
+1.
> On 2.6.7.2: Regarding the current rules on splitting and joining.
> ...
> And I do not think you are alone in wanting to do so. This all
> comes down to the dynamic vs. static behavior of the <segment>
> and <ignorable> elements.
I think having some kind of mechanism that indicates a unit should not be re-segmented would be perfectly acceptable. This type of requirement exists for example in XLIFF:doc from Interoperability Now. this notion is also listed in our wiki (See the section "Segment modification" in https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/Feature/Segmentation).
We had no discussion on this until now, but that doesn't mean we should not.
> An alternative to the attributes on segment that I feel is
> cleaner is to leverage the static structure property of <unit>.
> If you have non sub dividable pieces that you want to preserve
> they should be put in a <unit> each and in the <unit> you put
> a single <segment>.
I would prefer to use some unit-level attribute than re-purpose the group/unit. Hinting that putting the segment representation may be done that way would somewhat go against the idea of having only one way to do one thing.
I'd rather have a clear attribute that indicate what re-segmentation operation can be done on a unit.
An extra note for the Inline-SC members: This discussion is related to text in a sub-section that lives in the "Inline Content" section, but it concerns more the general structure than the inline markup. I think any potential change here would not affect the overall inline markup proposals. So I think we can proceed in the SC with moving our proposals to the TC.
cheers,
-yves
