Dear all, As promised during the last TC phone conference, I am about to generate new suggestions related to the proposal. I start from a list of requirements which the suggestions should address. Here are the requirements from which I started: R.1 a mechanism to allow defaulting for XLIFF data categories R.2 formal representation of data category is secondary (i.e. the mechanism should be applicable to attributes and elements) R.3 mechanism should work for all XLIFF data categories R.4 location for defaulting information is secondary (i.e. default in central location, default at specific attributes or elements, and default at all attributes and elements is acceptable) R.5 XPath should not be used to relate default settings to the elements or attributes to which they pertain (let's call this 'target') To me, these requirements boil down to three questions: Q.1 What is defaulted? Q.2 How is it defaulted? Q.3 Where is it defaulted? The proposal (I will refer to this as 'P1') I originally submitted (which did not meet R.5) answered the questions as follows: P1.A1 allow defaulting for any XLIFF data category P1.A2 use XPath to designate the targets for default settings P1.A3 use a new central element 'defaults' Unfortunately, I am not able to work in detail on all of the proposals we discussed. Since I don't see a way to come up with a list of defaultable data categories (I mentioned this in the meeting), I refrain from any attempt of starting this endeavour. Hopefully, others will be able to pitch in here. Nevertheless, here are some thoughts which try to capture what we discussed, open issues, and an alternative to my original proposal. P1': like P1 but without XPath One possiblity for doing away with XPath would be the following: <defaults> <default id="1"> <dataCat>maxwidth</dataCat> <value>72</value> </default> <default id="2"> <dataCat>xml:lang</dataCat> <value>en</value> </default> </defaults> ... <trans-unit default="1,2"> <source>...</source> </trans-unit> The idea here is that each target explicitly names the defaults which should be used for it. From my understanding, this is not really kosher, since for example the way to identify relationships (or 'targets') is a proprietary and not very efficient one. XPath is the standard for this. Accordingly, I would ask the TC members to reconsider my original proposal. P2: defaults are encoded at the level of the 'group' element (John's proposal) todo: a) define defaultable data categories (Q.1) b) design a representation for default settings (Q.2); this has include a way to identify to which XLIFF data category a default setting pertains P3: defaults are encoded 'in the vicinity' of the XLIFF element to which they pertain (Mark's proposal) todo: a) define defaultable data categories (Q.1) b) define 'in the vicinity of' (Q.3) c) design representation (Q.2) Best, Christian