Follow up on your "Basic structure" comment, part [3]

Hello Chase,

 

As you know from recent emails from us the XLIFF TC is working hard to incorporate all the great feedback, including yours, we received during the public review period for XLIFF 2.0. Once again, my sincere thanks for the especially useful
 feedback you submitted. We are quite sure feedback like this will ultimately lead to a better XLIFF 2.0.

 

I would like to address a point you made in your comments (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/201305/msg00061.html) regarding the Basic structure, specifically "The notes element (2.2.2.9) allow formatting style information
 (@fs:fs, @fs:subFs).  Why?".

 

We took a good hard look at the Format Style module, and its role relative to the whole XLIFF lifecycle, and its applicability to  part of the XLIFF file other than translation content. Your question (as I read it) is around why we would
 want to include information in a note in an HTML preview. It is our thinking that there could actually be value in including notes in the HTML preview. In some cases they could aid the reviewer in understanding some tricky aspect of the content or the workflow.
 The really good think about @fs in this context is that it is explicitly not meant for aiding in a roundtrip, and is only meant to provide a just in time preview. Therefore we see little risk that it would be (legally) abused, or that it would cause any issues
 around interoperability.

 

I hope this makes sense to you and that our thinking is not counter to your thoughts.

 

Please feel free to comment back if you have further feeling on this issue.

 

You are very welcome to follow the tracking of this and all the public review comments on our wiki tracker (this note is refers to comment #30):

https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker

 

And again, sincere thanks for helping us to make XLIFF 2.0 a better standard.

 

Thanks,

 

Bryan