AW: [xliff] Input to discussion on Conformance

["Dimitra.Anastasiou" <Dimitra.Anastasiou@ul.ie>]

Title: AW: [xliff] Input to discussion on Conformance

Hi all,

I think that if we find valid XLIFF files with a lot of extensions, then XLIFF loses its rigid structure and may not look as XLIFF any more. Maybe four categories are many, but two (f-extended and unextended) might be enough in my opinion.
As for the processing conformance, I also think it is difficult to validate, but I believe some metadata should be mandatory, such as the date, tool, language etc.

Regards,
D.


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Rodolfo M. Raya [mailto:rmraya@maxprograms.com]
Gesendet: Mo 25.10.2010 18:51
An: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: RE: [xliff] Input to discussion on Conformance

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 3:35 PM
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xliff] Input to discussion on Conformance
>
> For processing conformance: I think it's important to have processing
> expectations and express them in clear clauses in the specification. But it
> seems that this goes beyond what OASIS sees as "conformance", and we
> could treat this separately?

Processing expectations can be placed in the specification document next to the element or attribute description where they apply.
There is no need to put processing expectations in the conformance section.

> I think we are going to have difficulties to validate processing conformance.

You are right, Yves.

We can safely validate documents. We cannot validate processing conformance.

Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya   <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
Maxprograms      http://www.maxprograms.com



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php