- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 08:20:55 -0600
- To: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
> I don't think this is a problem with the proposal. > > selector="//desc" idValue="concat(../@name, '_d')" > ... > This is unique iff a msg can have at most one desc. > If a msg can have multiple desc elements, it obviously > is not. But then you should use something like > > idValue="concat(../@name, '_d', count(preceding-sibling::desc))" > > To write correct rules, you have to know what's allowed in > the target XML vocabulary. If you write rules with false > assumptions, it's not really the fault of ITS. I agree about that last part :) But at the same time concat(../@name, '_d', count(preceding-sibling::desc)) wouldn't work if we want the ID value to be reproducible with another version of the file (except obviously if there is always the same number of <desc> In the same order). I guess what we need to clarify is what are the requirements of the ID value we are discussing. To me it should be: - unique at least within the document - the value should be the same in new versions of the document That's because the type of tasks I would use it for are tasks across versions of the same document. But Dave, you are maybe thinking of something different: how to get an ID valid for a given document during its localization cycle. In other word a value that doesn't need to survive after the document is done. In other words you are thinking XLIFF 'id' and I'm thinking XLIFF 'resname'. Cheers, -ys
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 14:21:19 UTC