RE: [xliff-comment] Further to RelaxNG as an XLIFF schema

["Tony Jewtushenko" <tony.jewtushenko@productinnovator.com>]

Raymond: 

I had replied to your original suggestion submission indicating that the TC
would add RelaxNG schema support to our post 1.2 deliverables.  The request
was analyzed and debated during an XLIFF Technical Committee meeting in May
2007, the minutes of which are publicly posted here:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200705/msg00011.html

I regret to inform you that when the RelaxNG schema support requirement was
analyzed and debated, the TC concluded that supporting a second validation
framework would exceed our technical committee's resources.  We simply don't
have the bandwidth to adequately support more than XSD as XLIFF's canonical
validation mechanism.  Bandwidth was also the reason why we dropped DTD's in
favour of XSD.

My apologies for not communicating the TC's decision to you sooner.  We will
maintain your enhancement request in our "nice to have" category so that if
the market demands RelaxNG more urgently and resources are available the TC
can revisit the issue in the future.

Regards,
Tony Jewtushenko
Co-Chair, OASIS XLIFF TC


-----Original Message-----
From: Raymond Martin [mailto:laseray@gmail.com] 
Sent: 17 September 2007 21:09
To: xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff-comment] Further to RelaxNG as an XLIFF schema

Hello,

back in May I posted a message in regard to using RelaxNG as a schema for
XLIFF.
At that time I was told that it would be considered for a future version and
that
my assistance would be appreciated when the time came to implement it.
Although it may not be the time to implement it for a soon to be version, I
have
been told by Rodolfo Raya that the consideration to use RelaxNG has been
dropped
after a throughout analysis.

Since I was the one to bring the matter to the XLIFF TC's attention I would
appreciate
it if someone would enlighten me as to the reason for the decision. As far
as I am
concerned, RelaxNG is a very sensible choice for a schema and it is also the
choice
of quite a few other standards at OASIS, W3C, and elsewhere. From the
research I have
done, some for an upcoming article to promote RelaxNG to the Localization
Industry
Standards Association (LISA), I would fine it very hard to believe that
RelaxNG could
be turned down solely on technical merits. There must be some other reason
because
as far a document oriented schemas go (XLIFF being one), RelaxNG is superior
to 
W3C XML schema. Note that many implementations are only just starting to use
RelaxNG and a very telling situation is that there are a number of W3C
standards 
that use it along with or in place of there own schema (W3C XML schema).
Please 
tell me exactly what reason there could be to disregard it. It seems very
odd to do
so.

By the way, I am going to create a number of schemas for the LISA standards
and
I would consider making one for XLIFF also. That could serve as a proof of
concept
and help those on the TC to see the benefits of RelaxNG over W3C XML schema.

Regards,

Raymond Martin








This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC.

In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
before posting.

Subscribe: xliff-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
Unsubscribe: xliff-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
List help: xliff-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/
Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
Committee: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xliff