One of the functions the system has to be able to do is report in translation coverage (ie how many documents are in all/some/one language). Your first markup makes it possible to run coverage reports that would show that some translations are missing. However the second is a lot clearer and would allow easy identification of exactly what part of the translation is missing.
Thanks for the feedback
UnderMine
In reply to Re^2: (OT) Marking up alternatives
by UnderMine
in thread (OT) Marking up alternatives
by UnderMine
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |