I think that this distribution has the same logic as the distribution of refs and ids
While an orphaned <ec/> can exist in a unit, orphaned <em/> is not allowed and MUST NOT appear.
So the logic IMHO is that you might need to associate fs or slr info with orphaned ecs and that is why they are allowed
But no need for having it on <em/> because you'll always have a corresponding <sm/> for placing it.
So I do not agree with Bryan that fs should be taken down from <ec/>
Rgds
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 Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Schnabel, Bryan S <> wrote:
I think we should take @fs and @subFs off of <ec>. Cannot comment on SLR yet.
I am working on some SLR use case and I must say I'm getting pretty excited about the module in general (sorry for this general statement of support for SLR which does not have any bearing on this thread).
________________________________________
From: [] on behalf of Yves Savourel []
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 12:54 PM
To:
Subject: [xliff] Modules attributes in ec vs em
Hi Bryan, Fredrik, all
While working on the validation I've noticed that we have the attributes for the FS and the SLR modules allowed in <sc> and <ec>,
but only in <sm> not in <em>.
Is that normal?
Cheers,
-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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
