[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] Handling unsupported modules and extensions
Are we saying that we could have two different representations of the same data depending on whether or not the tool supports the extension? That doesn’t sound very good to me. In addition there are no real differences for a tool between an extension it does not know about and a module it does not support. And we do have to find a solution for the case of the unsupported modules. So we probably can simply use the same solution (whatever it is) for the custom extensions. Cheers, -ys Yves Savourel From: Chase Tingley [mailto:chase@spartansoftwareinc.com] Picking this thread up after a long time. I included Yves's issue with data typing in unsupported extensions in the "challenges" section of the presentation on JLIFF I gave at FEISGILTT today. I had included the relevant text from the XLIFF 2.0 spec on a slide:
David pointed out that we can rely on the use of "should" here. The lack of type information means we may not be able to preserve the extension faithfully, but this is not necessarily non-compliant. If schema for the extension is published, then in theory the typing information can be known. However, there may be practical reasons (schema discovery, etc) that make this difficult in some case. On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]