Thanks David. In retrospect, I wish we’d made IDs required on <segment>. Not a huge deal.
From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 11:04 AM
To: Schnabel, Bryan S
Cc:
Subject: Re: [xliff] Assume elements without IDs cannot have FragIDs
Bryan, this is a correct assumption
Although we don't say so, it follows from the spec
We can add a note or warning at a later stage if we feel so because it changes nothing
there was discussion about this, I wanted modules to have fragids even w/o ids but we agreed that it would require a wildcard mechanism and discarded the idea all together.
Who wants fragids must use/add ids. BTW, this is also why we made group ids required..
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, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Schnabel, Bryan S <> wrote:
Looking at “3 Fragment Identification” I do not see an explicit statement that “elements without IDs cannot have FragIDs.”
For example the segment below has no ID:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xliff xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:2.0" version="2.0" srcLang="en" trgLang="fr">
<file id="f1">
<unit id="1">
<segment>
<source>source</source>
<target>target</target>
</segment>
</unit>
</file>
</xliff>
We imply this in 3.1 Selectors for Core Elements
“No prefix indicates an id for a <segment> or an <ignorable> or an inline element in the <source> element and the value of that id is unique within the enclosing <unit> element
(with the exception of the matching inline elements in the <target>).”
No action requested. I think the spec is fine for now. I just wanted to see if my assumption is true.
