Title: Message
I'm more than a
little concerned that non-clonable <g> elements prohibit
segmentation of text. I'm also unclear as to why it is necessary to
potentially exclude any text from the original <source>
when marking the segment boundaries. In this case, we can have the situation
where the sum of the parts does not equal the whole. If SRX (which is based on
Unicode TR-29) is being
considered to use with XLIFF, this standard defines where a segmentation break
should occur; not where a segment begins and ends. As such, there's no provision
for excluding text once it is segmented. Given the amount of assumed
functionality that is being passed on to the XLIFF editor I think it would be
reasonable to assume that this editor would also be capable of stripping
unwanted whitespace from the start or end of the segment where
necessary.
Is there a
documented reason why the <mrk> element was
chosen to represent segmentation and not a new, empty element such as
<seg/>?
David Pooley
Software Architect
SDL
International
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Martikainen
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:22
PM
To: xliff
Subject: [xliff] Proposal for Segmentation
Notation in XLIFF
Hi
all,
The segmentation
subcommittee has voted unequivocally to put forward the following proposal to
the main XLIFF committee on how to represent segmentation in XLIFF
files.
I would hereby like
to request a formal review of the proposal by the XLIFF Committee for its
inclusion in the XLIFF draft specification.
The following
document explains and details the proposed changes to the XLIFF
specification:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff-seg/download.php/11359/seg-proposal.htm
Best
regards,
Magnus
Martikainen
on behalf of the
XLIFF Segmentation Subcommittee
