RE: [xliff] RE: [xliff-comment] Section 2.5.4 Validating Documentswith Extensions - needs revision

["Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@heartsome.net>]

On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 12:54 -0400, Doug Domeny wrote:

Hi,

> Having said all that, I just realized a serious drawback to using "strict".
> Because XLIFF is used as an interchange format (the 'I' in XLIFF), the file
> is processed multiple times by various applications and vendors. Using
> "strict" would require ALL the vendors to HAVE ALL the proprietary schemas
> used within the XLIFF document. Obviously, this is not practical. So I guess
> "strict" is not an option.

I believe that "strict" is the right option for the Strict schema. 

Adding proprietary extensions to XLIFF is against the notion of easy interchange. Vendors that use custom namespaces in their XLIFF files are responsible for making their Schemas available. 

If a vendor wants to use a custom namespace but doesn't want to publish its proprietary schema, then that vendor should use the "Transitional" Schema, not the Strict one.


> That leaves us with "lax" and "skip". The .NET parser (and sometimes XSV)
> treats "lax" as "strict". So I guess I'm back to (reluctantly) preferring
> "skip".

As said above, "strict" is still the right option for the Strict Schema.

Best regards,
Rodolfo

--
The information in this e-mail is intended strictly for the addressee, without prejudices, as a confidential document. Should it reach you, not being the addressee, it is not to be made accessible to any other unauthorised person or copied, distributed or disclosed to any other third party as this would constitute an unlawful act under certain circumstances, unless prior approval is given for its transmission. The content of this e-mail is solely that of the sender and not necessarily that of Heartsome.