Re: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.1 csprd02: <item> vs <unitItem> in section 5.6.6.5

Hello Chase,

great thanks for taking the time and reviewing the csprd02 of XLIFF Vesrion 2.1

On behalf of the XLIFF TC, I created this issue

https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-21

from your comment.

Please follow the resolution/disposal of your comment on the above address

In case you want to follow up on the comment resolution please continue this conversation that is referenced from the JIRA issue under the following markmail link

http://markmail.org/thread/usyb7czmv7c36egk

The TC plans to resolve your comment tomorrow and to implement the solution in a new working draft by 27th February, 2017.

The reported issue is deemed editorial in nature.

Cheers and thanks again

dF

Dr. David Filip
===========

OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair

OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer

Spokes Research Fellow

ADAPT Centre

KDEG, Trinity College Dublin

Mobile: +420-777-218-122

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Chase Tingley <> wrote:

This is the text of the Processing Requirements section in 5.6.6.5:
Processing Requirements
Modifiers MAY create <item> elements with attributes.
Modifiers SHOULD NOT change <item> and its attribute defined in this module.
Modifiers SHOULD NOT remove <item> and its attribute defined in this module, unless they are removed as part of a <revision> element removed according to its own Processing Requirements.

As this section is discussing the <unitItem> element, I believe that the uses of <item> in these requirements are incorrect, and should be <unitItem> instead.  Additionally, the hyperlinks are pointing to #item instead of #unitItem.

ie:

Processing Requirements
Modifiers MAY create <unitItem> elements with attributes.
Modifiers SHOULD NOT change <unitItem> and its attribute defined in this module.
Modifiers SHOULD NOT remove <unitItem> and its attribute defined in this module, unless they are removed as part of a <revision> element removed according to its own Processing Requirements.