RE: [xliff-comment] csprd03 - Enhanced conformance clause/statement related to "Backward Compatibility"

["Schnabel, Bryan S" <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com>]

Hello Christian,

 

Thank you very much for this very useful comment. The TC will track the issue here:

 

https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker

 

We have logged your issue as csprd03 227, and we’ve assigned a TC member to own the issue. He will consult the TC as needed and determine the best resolution. You will be kept informed the whole time.

 

Your continued feedback on this, and any other issue you discover is appreciated and encouraged.

 

Thank you,

 

Bryan

 

From: Lieske, Christian [mailto:christian.lieske@sap.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 1:17 AM
To: xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff-comment] csprd03 - Enhanced conformance clause/statement related to "Backward Compatibility"

 

In section "2. Conformance” Comment Annotation" there is passage:

 

[[

3. Backwards Compatibility

 

Conformant applications are NOT REQUIRED to support XLIFF 1.2 or previous Versions.

]]

 

To me, additional information related to backward compatibility would seem valuable: Information that clarifies whether XLIFF 2.0 documents are (or under certain circumstances can be) backward compatible with XLIFF 1.2 or not.

 

Best regards,

Christian

 

Aside: Is “backward compatibility” probably a better wording than “backwards compatibility”?