Thnaks Bryan, for checking the sanity of <group>. @All I will fix the definition of note next week, when I am back from travels. I would say that not having name on <group> is also an omission of sorts, given the objective of the element and that we have name on <unit>. So I will tentatively add this and we will see if there are objections by the next week teleconference. Cheers dF Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC CNGL LT-Web CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto:
david.filip@ul.ie On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Schnabel, Bryan S <
bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com > wrote: Rationale: Traditionally we've acknowledged two methods of preserving an original documents hierarchy, minimalist and maximalist. In the minimalist we use a skeleton. And in the maximalist we use <group> and <unit> elements. It is good that we have @name on <unit>. But to completely support the maximalist approach, I think we should add @name to the <group> element. Also, since we allow <notes> in <group>, we should add <group> to our definitions of <note> was: A comment that contains information about <source>, <target>, <segment> or <unit> elements. should be: A comment that contains information about <source>, <target>, <segment>, <unit> or <group> elements. I don’t see this as a substantive change, so unless a case is made against the name attribute on <group> I don’t think we will need to vote. We can see at the next meeting if we have consensus, and just add the attribute. Thanks, Bryan