On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Schnabel, Bryan S <> wrote:
We have very strict rules about the state of the translated XLIFF that comes back to us from our LSPs. In short, they must have identical structure, down to
the <file>, <group>, <trans-unit>, <source>, and <target> level. My merge code simply cannot tolerate or reconcile diversions. We do allow adding, removing, or reordering inline elements.
Bryan, this is fine for 1.2 but for 2.0 you should be able to accept back units that have different segment and lower level structure. (what Fredrik has called the dynamic strucuture.)
IMHO you should not be able to accept back files that have different unit and higher structure.
If your LSP needs for any reason to change the static structure for their processing (which is quite likely, I do not disagree on that) they must be anyway able to return to you the same static structure. How they achieve that is totally up to them.
So I argue that we do not comment on this or any similar private transformation as long as the "perpetrator" is able to return files that are compliant with not having performed them..
Does that make sense?
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:
