RE: [xliff] SC feedback: Validation

["Estreen, Fredrik" <Fredrik.Estreen@lionbridge.com>]

Hi Rodolfo,

I'm aware of XLIFFChecker and have looked at the source code. But there are places where I could not use it or where I would not want to use it. If we disregard the UI part which is even harder to support, and probably not wanted in a pure validator used by other apps, I still see a lot of portability issues. 

For example iOS and WP7 devices due to no java support at all as far as I know. 

For Android you need to repackage some of the third part libs you use to be able to run it on Dalvik VM (Xerces for example).

In most cases as an application developer I do not want to run an external application, so a library should be provided. For web server and database stored procedures I really do not want to call out from the native environment and launch a new process to do validation. And apps that support java natively would most probably want to reuse their existing VM and not pay the overhead of launching a new one for each validation.

A java library would probably work well for apps written in Java but not for others.

I doubt a developer of a .NET app would like to add a dependency on a Java VM to deploy his otherwise totally .NET application. Same thing with most other languages that are not Java.

The list goes on as the number of platforms and environments is ever growing.

Regards,
Fredrik Estreen

-----Original Message-----
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Rodolfo M. Raya
Sent: den 22 december 2011 11:06
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
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
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org