xliff-inline — archive

[Bryan Schnabel]

Hi Yves,

> I think the bottom line is that GP-#1 does not try 
> to address the old Req-#18, which is now Re-#17.

Uh oh - I was comparing apples to oranges! 

The apology I issued for being a commenting lurker, rather than a meeting participant, at the onset of my last email; rings loudly and truly. I totally thought 2.1 was meant to be a guiding principle addressing the (current) requirement 1.17. 

I am sorry to have wasted bandwidth with my out-of-synch-argument. The good news is that I finally understand the very end of the meeting minutes that said:

"Yves: Only one item left!
Let's work on it by email and next meeting we may be able start discussing the implementation."

I will re-read my comments and see if any of them still apply, and see how many of them sound comical given my misunderstanding. Annotations within . . .

One interesting thing, my misunderstanding aside, is the observation that:

> it seems ironic to me that the example of what should be avoided in 1.17:
>
> This text is in bold.
>
> is (with the exception of the use of start tags instead of empty tags) exactly 
> what is stated in 2.1 as "what we want to try to achieve:
>
> This text is in bold.