xliff-comment

Hi Christian,

The format used in the examples was "made up" for this special case. It is not well known and there is nothing to document.

The only goal was to have a compact form, much less verbose than XML, so that the reader could see the overall structure. And the hope was that it would be readable enough without explanations.

If you feel that reading the examples in this format has helped you understand the specification better, then we can assume that it has served its purpose. Let us know if not.

Regards,

Rodolfo

Hi,

I'm replying on behalf of Mihai Niță, who wrote the Plural, Gender and Select module.

= = = = =

There is no origin, it was created "on the spot" the same way most programmers use some kind of pseudo-code, with no formal standard or definition, with variations between people, but widely understood.

The goal was to make it easier to understand what is going on without being distracted by verbose xml:

Compare

<unit id="seg1" pgs:switch="gender:host_gender">
  <segment id="seg1" pgs:case="feminine">
    <source>You are invited to her party</source>
  </segment>
  <segment id="seg2" pgs:case="masculine">
    <source>You are invited to his party</source>
  </segment>
  <segment id="seg3" pgs:case="other">
    <source>You are invited to their party</source>
  </segment>
</unit>

to

unit @switch(gender:host_gender)
    segment "You are invited to her party"    @case(feminine)
    segment "You are invited to his party"    @case(masculine)
    segment "You are invited to their party"  @case(other)


In some examples it is made to look a bit more like a programming language construct instead of nesting xml tags:

switch ( [gender:host_gender plural:guest_count] ) {
  case [ feminine     0]:
       "$host_name did not invite anyone to her party."
  ...
  case [    other other]:
       "$host_name invited $guest_count guests to their party."
}


The idea was for one to look at it and "just get it", without explanation.
It looks like that failed :-)

If you think that this is in fact more confusing than helpful,
should we remove the "compact forms"?

= = = = =

Regards,

Rodolfo