Hi Eric; On 25 January 2002, you were heard to say: >Then, in the interest of simplification, let's not have it present on and at all and require it to be present at the level. <dcpl> is there a word missing between 'present at the' and 'level' ? Regards, David L ************************************************************
eric@etranslate.com wrote on 1/25/02 11:11:17 PM ************************************************************ On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Yves Savourel wrote: > >> It is strongly recommended to use > >> xml:lang for <source> and <target> as well, so any XML tools (not just > >> XLIFF tools) can be language-aware. > > > >Why not make this required? Are there any applications that would be > >harmed by always having an xml:lang attribute specified on source/target > >elements? I argue that the converse is true and so would like to see > >xml:lang be a required attribute. > > I think we didn't make required because you could avoid to have it for one > of the two language in the document by specifying the xml:lang at the > <xliff> level and it would be redundand. Then, in the interest of simplification, let's not have it present on <source> and <target> at all and require it to be present at the <xliff> level. Eric ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <
http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl > ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Get your free e-mail account at
http://www.ftnetwork.com Visit the web site of the Financial Times at
http://www.ft.com