Subject: XLIFF 2.0 public review comments
In my role as a TAB member I was asked to review XLIFF 2.0. These comments are individual and do not represent any consensus of the TAB.
The TAB are trialling a checklist to aim for consistency across reviews. I have attached my responses, I hope they make sense.
There are only two areas that should be fixed.
1: please check that all references are listed in the references section. There were some references to Unicode in the document that were not listed in the ref section. Same for ISO 8601
Also make sure all references are used in the body of the spec.
2.In the conformance section add a statement about compatibility with xliff 1.x e.g. applications [are/are not] required to support xliff 1.x and xliff 2.0 – something like that.
Let me know if anything needs clarified.