| Opinion: importance of preserving XML markup and nodes |
3 |
2009-04-01 |
| XMLness aspect (RE: [xliff] Opinion: importance of preserving XMLmarkup and nodes) |
1 |
2009-04-02 |
| RE: XMLness aspect (RE: [xliff] Opinion: importance of preservingXML markup and nodes) |
1 |
2009-04-02 |
| RE: [xliff] Opinion: Need or not for SUB |
1 |
2009-04-05 |
| Groups - XLIFF TC Meeting added |
2 |
2009-04-06 |
| RE: Re: [xliff] Wiki Document related to "Generic Inline Markup" |
3 |
2009-04-06 |
| Groups - XLIFF TC Meeting modified |
4 |
2009-04-06 |
| TMX 2.0 does not have an inline element to store content? (RE:[xliff] Wiki Document related to "Generic Inline Markup") |
1 |
2009-04-06 |
| Re: [xliff] TMX 2.0 does not have an inline element to storecontent? (RE: [xliff] Wiki Document related to "Generic Inline Markup") |
2 |
2009-04-06 |
| RE: [xliff] TMX 2.0 does not have an inline element to store content? |
1 |
2009-04-07 |
| RE: [xliff] TMX 2.0 does not have an inline element to store content? (RE: [xliff] Wiki Document related to "Generic Inline Markup") |
1 |
2009-04-07 |
| XLIFF 2.0 in 3D (Testing the friendship between XLIFF and TMX) |
1 |
2009-04-07 |
| Wiki Document related to "Generic Inline Markup" - Proposal for Next Steps |
1 |
2009-04-07 |
| Re: [xliff] TMX 2.0 does not have an inline element to store content? (RE: [xliff] Wiki Document related to "Generic Inline Markup") |
1 |
2009-04-07 |
| RE: Wiki Document related to "Generic Inline Markup" - Proposal forNext Steps |
1 |
2009-04-08 |
| Article that mentions XLIFF |
1 |
2009-04-22 |
