Re: [xliff] IDs - unit id unique per file (D - 109)

OK, I gather that the TC wants unit id's unique per file and group ids should remain optional.
I am going to implement this but will roll back if I hear dissent by next Wed, Nov 13, 13,

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

http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452

mailto: 

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Yves Savourel <> wrote:

Hi David, all,

> *D)*

> While it is quite clear that inline ids uniqueness scope needs to be

> <unit> and not <segment>. There is a similar issue on the <group>/<file>

> level but the pros and cons do not seem to be that clear.

> Yves requested that unit ids are unique within a <file> element rather

> than within the parent element, which obviously can be a <group>.

> *Proposed solution:*

> Do not change this, as unit id uniqueness within the parent element

> seems sufficient and in line with the design principle of requiring

> the smallest necessary uniqueness scope. Again, this is streaming friendly

> and makes groups full fledged grouping/structuring mechanism as intended.

I can tell you already that, as the submitter of 109, such "solution" would not resolve my comment.

I'm not following your arguments:

- I don't know where you get the idea that the TC has a "design principle of requiring the smallest necessary uniqueness scope". ->

Not a valid argument for keeping things as they are.

- Uniqueness of unit id within the parent is no more streaming-friendly than uniqueness within a file, as a group can span many

units and even the whole file. -> Not a valid argument for keeping things as they are.

- If the unit ids are unique within each <file> they are also unique within each group. So I don't see how that would impact

negatively making "groups full fledged grouping/structuring mechanism" (whatever that means).

In addition:

- Since your solution allows duplicates across groups, there has to be some benefits to that vs. not allowing duplicates. What are

those benefits?

- I don't think "id uniqueness within the parent element seems sufficient" is fine: Comment 109 gives an example showing that it is

not sufficient, and I guess I'll add a few more arguments:

a) In general IDs should be as unique as possible. XLIFF does not do this in some cases for good reasons. But the burden should be

on demonstrating that having no-uniqueness on a given scope is necessary, not the other way around.

b) Units are one of the basic objects in any localization tool. The capability to identify uniquely each one within a file in XLIFF

would make so many things simpler: e.g. pointing to the unit that has an error, using the unit id as index, etc.

-yves

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php