RE: [xliff] Minutes of the XLIFF TC March 5th. 2002

["Friedman, Eric" <eric@ConveySoftware.com>]

Hi folks,

On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Peter Reynolds wrote:

> I share your frustration with people describing the current spec as
> unworkable. We are also working with XLIFF and doing fine on the current
> spec. Considerable work went into achieving the 1.0 spec and I don't think
> it is helpful for that to be dismissed.

No one has "dismissed" the work that has been done up to date.  I can
only speak for myself on this subject, but if I thought the current
document was worthless, I wouldn't have bothered to get involved.

I've heard from several people that they have working implementations
of the current specification.  I think that's a terrific indicator that
things are going well.  However, I have >not< heard from anyone who
has successfully done work using their tools in combination with
those produced by someone else in the group without access to information
beyond the contents of the shared spec.

The abstract of the spec is very clear on this point: "The purpose of
this format is to store localisable data and carry it from one step of
the localisation process to the other, while allowing interoperability
between tools."

Has someone achieved that "interoperability between tools"?  That's
what I want to see happen, because it has much more value than
yet another format that only works with tools from this-or-that
vendor.

Eric