Hi Yves,
my vote on this is for B.
My main reason is that it will allow only one style of tagging. Also supporting <pc> which I agree is nicer from an XML perspective forces all implementations to support two completely different ways to represent the same tagging, spanning and non spanning. It also requires a transformation from <pc> to <sc>/<ec> to be defined in order to allow some cases of sub segmentation. So my argument is simplicity.
My second preference would be for D a single <ph> with attributes defining it's usage (given that it is only used non spanning). It provide the same functionality as B but in an in my opinion less clear way.
Regards,
Fredrik Estreen
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: den 14 november 2011 17:31
To:
Subject: [xliff-inline] Type of codes
Hi everyone,
One last summary on the type of codes discussion.
I've listed below the four options we have:
A) ph, pc, sc/ec
This is the current draft. We allow both pc and sc/ec, the second being used when the first cannot.
The main advantage is that it offers the pc cleanness to users who need it.
It has the drawback of making thing a bit more complex for the tools.
B) ph, sc/ec
This would remove pc, marking all span-like original codes with sc/ec.
It simplifies somehow the writing of the documents.
Its main drawback is that not having a pc notation is not very friendly for XML-like original formats.
C) ph, pc
This would change ph to handle also the sc/ec cases.
This would add several attributes to ph. Essentially it would transfer the syntax of two element names to new attributes in ph.
The pc element would stay to provide a clean markup for the well-formed span-like codes.
D) ph
This would code all cases with ph: One code to rules them all.
The ph element would have many attributes to handle all the cases.
This option is especially attractive for tool extracting only placeholder codes.
Note:
- Regardless of the option, we would still have a distinction between placeholder and span-like codes. In other words, even with option D (<ph> only) a filter should be able to extract an HTML <BR/> and a <B>...</B> making a distinction, for example: <ph id='1'><BR/></ph> and <ph id='2' kind='start'><B></ph>...<ph rid='2' kind='end'></B></ph>. At some point we'll have to have a discussion about whether extraction tools MUST or only SHOULD do the distinction, but that's independent of the representation.
- Keep also <mrk> in mind. The presence of <pc> would make the use of <mrk> a bit more complex: (e.g. <mrk> overlapping <pc>). But not that much because <mrk> can overlap <mrk> too so the use case exist even if <pc> is not there.
My personal opinion:
I think have distinct elements for original codes that are placeholder vs span-like is useful, even important. So I would not put everything into ph.
I would tend to think having the span-like codes handled only with sc/ec is fine. But looking at how v1.2 is used, the requirements we have for 2.0 and the feedback of the past months, I can see there are arguments for also having pc, and since the drawbacks of keeping pc are not that big I would. We just need to make sure it can be mapped transparently to sc/ec and conversely.
So I would pick option A.
What would you pick and, as importantly, why? (so all can understand the rationale of the choice)
Cheers,
-yves
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
