[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] SC feedback: Validation
Hi Fredrik, XLIFFChecker is a Java application and you can find executable versions for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux in my web site. The source code is also available for download, so you can run it on any platform where java is supported. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya rmraya@maxprograms.com Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com > -----Original Message----- > From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf > Of Estreen, Fredrik > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:38 AM > To: Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xliff] SC feedback: Validation > > Hi Yves, All, > > I'm strongly in favor of using a schema as the primary way to validate Xliff > documents. I do not like the idea to rely heavily on external applications to > do the validation. > > For the purpose of testing applications for standards conformance including if > they abide to the processing expectations set forth in the standard I do > endorse a separate application. That is likely the only reasonable path to > take. > > The reason that I do not want it for the everyday validation by Xliff > supporting applications is that it will most likely not be portable. I doubt that > the TC has the resources to develop and maintain validation tools and > libraries useable by any application on any platform that might want to > validate Xliff. If no tool is provided for a platform it would lead to applications > not validating or developing their own validation code. Even if there is a > reference source code available the new implementations might (or in my > experience will) behave differently leading to many definitions of valid in the > field. > > I would propose doing a schema in XML Schema 1.0 and another one > augmented by the extensions provided by XML Schema 1.1. This should be a > relatively "simple" task since 1.1 will interpret a 1.0 schema the same way it > worked before. So it should be technically possible to just augment the 1.0 > version with the new features. This would give us a basic validation that > works for almost all cases today and a better validation that will become > available to applications as the new schema becomes available on their > platform or framework. To reduce the initial work we should probably wait > with doing 1.1 until we have a reasonably stable 1.0 version. > > Regards, > Fredrik Estreen > > -----Original Message----- > From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf > Of Yves Savourel > Sent: den 20 december 2011 12:52 > To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xliff] SC feedback: Validation > > Hi everyone, > > During the last inline SC meeting we discussed the validation for XLIFF: > > Which mechanism to use (schema or schema + dedicated tool), if XSD which > version, what about RelaxNG? How much of this should be taken into > account when designing our formats, etc. > > There was a consensus that this needs to be bring up at the TC level and > settled soon so we can know the guideline when working on the > specification. > > There has been some discussion of this before. > e.g. Rodolfo email here: > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201111/msg00046.html > > cheers, > -yves > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]