Re: [xliff] Propose we add @name to <group>

Thnaks Bryan, for checking the sanity of <group>.

@All

I will fix the definition of note next week, when I am back from travels.

I would say that not having name on <group> is also an omission of sorts, given the objective of the element and that we have name on <unit>.

So I will tentatively add this and we will see if there are objections by the next week teleconference.

Cheers

dF

Dr. David Filip

=======================

LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS

University of Limerick, Ireland

telephone: +353-6120-2781

cellphone: +353-86-0222-158

facsimile: +353-6120-2734

mailto: 

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Schnabel, Bryan S <> wrote:

Rationale: 

 

Traditionally we've acknowledged two methods of preserving an original documents hierarchy, minimalist and maximalist. In the minimalist we use a skeleton. And in the maximalist we use <group> and <unit> elements.

 

It is good that we have @name on <unit>. But to completely support the maximalist approach, I think we should add @name to the <group> element.

 

Also, since we allow <notes> in <group>, we should add <group> to our definitions of <note>

 

was:

A comment that contains information about <source>, <target>, <segment> or <unit> elements.

 

should be:

A comment that contains information about <source>, <target>, <segment>, <unit> or <group> elements.

 

I don’t see this as a substantive change, so unless a case is made against the name attribute on <group> I don’t think we will need to vote. We can see at the next meeting if we have consensus, and just add the attribute.

 

Thanks,

 

Bryan