[xliff-tools] Another question on PO and XLIFF

[Yves Savourel]

Hi Tim and all,


> Okay, I'd argue that "\n" is actually a piece of markup as well - 
> I understand what you're saying, but maybe extend your argument to 
> the treatment of "<br>" markup in html files : do you wrap that 
> in <g> xliff elements, or convert it to carriage returns ?

But the big difference is that in extracting an HTML to XLIFF you would not use xml:space='preserve', so preserving the <br> is
needed.

The current guidelines recommend to use xml:space="preserve". But went merging back we would discard any line-breaks and solely rely
on existing "\n"?

I would expect the XLIFF content to have the text as close as possible to the real output to make it easier on the translators. They
will be much happier with this:

<source xml:space='preserve'>Here are the options :
            -V  displays version information
            -X  extracts magic information\n</source>

Than this:

<source>Here are the options :\n            -V  displays version information\n            
 -X  extracts magic information\n</source>

And there is the segmentation issue too. Having real line-breaks or marked-up "\n" makes a difference.


> We're currently wrapping "\n" in <it> tags at the moment 
> (will change that as soon as we move to XLIFF 1.1 and will adopt <g> instead)

Don't you mean <x/> (or <ph>)?


Kenavo,
-yves