W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Versioning

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 23:32:35 +0900
Message-ID: <44352683.5040609@w3.org>
To: "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Cc: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org
Lieske, Christian wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Please find my replies below.
> 
> Best,
> Christian 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
> Sent: Donnerstag, 6. April 2006 16:15
> To: Lieske, Christian
> Cc: Yves Savourel; public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Versioning
> 
> ...
>> I still see a need for a version attribute on the rules element
>> (beneficial for example for linked rules files since those files
>> otherwise would not have an indicator to which version they belong).
> 
> we decided to link via a xlink attribute which points to a file. If the
> top element of that file has a version attribute, you will take the
> version. If not, the version is the one indicated at the top element of
> the including file.
> 
> Where is the problem / tricky case with this solution?
> 
> CL> The top-level elements of the file to which the xlink goes is
> "rules", right?

yes

> CL> In that case, you would have/need the version element on "rules".

but that is just because "rules" serves as a top level element. If there
are several rules in the same file, you would not need the version
attribute, and it would rather confuse things, I think.

- Felix



Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 14:32:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:07 UTC