[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] Fw: Solution #6
> After some more thinking on the reformat issue, I came to the conclusion > that the question is not which solution is best for coord/font/reformat > (It's solution #2, I think we will all agree with this if we see the > backward compatibility as a moot point). The real question is: are we now > working on 1.1 or 2.0? I think we need to clearly define what kind of compatibility to the prior version is necessary for the minor release. o Backward compatibility - A tool implemented for a new version without a knowledge of its prior version can read and understand XLIFF documents created for the prior version. o Forward compatibility - A tool implemented for a prior version can read and understand XLIFF documents created for a new version. If we add new elements or attributes to the new version, even if they are optional, it's not forward compatible. 1.1 already is not forward compatible. I think that the forward compatibility is too strict even for minor release. However, the Migration Policy states that: As a guideline, "Minor" releases: 1. Shall be comprised of small changes that would not require re-qualification of supporting tools or technologies I'm not sure what re-qualification means, but I hope that the statement doesn't mean the forward compatibility. I think it is fair to expect the backward compatibility in a minor release. With a guarantee of the backward compatibility, tool developers don't need to study all minor releases but the latest one. After these thoughts, I have changed my mind. #2 - Restructure isn't my choice anymore. If we all can agree to defer the reformat issue until 2.0, Yve's #6 is a valid choice. If not, I will choose #4 - Combined. This option allows both the backward compatibility and the clean representation of text and meta info. Going forward a little bit, how about deprecating <source> and <target>? So we can remove them in 2.0 if we want. > Hence, if we are indeed working on 1.1, then the changes we make should be > backward compatible. That is a 1.1 tool should be able to cope with a 1.0 > file. One good way to ensure this is to be able to validate a 1.0 document > with the 1.1 XSD. Good point. To do so, the constraint on version attribute in <xliff> must be changed to allow 1.x as well. <xsd:attribute name="version" type="xsd:string" use="required" fixed="1.1"/> ------------------- Shigemichi Yazawa yazawa@globalsight.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC