Re: [xliff] Proposed XLIFF Charter

["Eric D. Friedman" <eric@conveysoftware.com>]

I have some questions/comments for the folks who worked on the charter
proposal.  Some of these questions are about text that's in the current
charter, but since you've chosen to retain it, I'll ask about that too.

1. Why the strong emphasis on extensibility in the first sentence?
(It gets pride of place among all the other adjectives).  Extensibility,
done correctly, is important, but it's not the *most* important thing
we're doing, is it?  I note that extensibility is covered in the last
sentence of the proposal, so I'd recommend dropping this first reference
to it.  I would like to see us standardize everything we can possibly
standardize, and then provide targeted extensions points for problems
we cannot resolve as a last resort.

2. "vocabularies" -- I'm not sure that this is the best word to capture
(what I assume to be) your intent.  A vocabulary is simply a list of
words, with accompanying definitions.  It says nothing about the syntax
of a language in which those words are used,  but syntax should
definitely be part of the charter.

Obviously you meant more than vocabulary allows, which is why I think
another word would be better.  Your parenthetical "formats, schemas"
is a good start.  I would lean toward "schemas" because that has specific
meaning in the world of XML.

3. What distinction are you trying to express with "mark up or capture"?
It's not clear to me.

4. In the second sentence, "standardized" is begging the question:  we are
a standards body defining a standard, hence it's standardized.  I
would drop this word.

5. "aspects of the i18n process."  Someone reading the charter must be
able to discover what problems we propose to solve.  More needs to be
said here.

6. What do you mean, exactly, by "comprehensively support common software
and content data formats" ?  This can mean a lot of things, including
the extraction into content+skeleton and back again, which I doubt is
intended.

7. What's the thinking behind "company culture" ?  I have never seen
a technical specification that mentioned this as an objective.  What
does it mean in the context of this charter?

8. Why did you decide to drop "format that will allow any software
provider to produce a single interchange format that can be delivered
to and understood by any localization service provider" ?  This is a big
reduction in scope -- what's the thinking behind it?

Eric


On Thu, 9 May 2002, Peter Reynolds wrote:

> Proposed XLIFF charter. It was agreed to propose this at the face to face
> meeting by Tony, John Corrigan, Mat, Yves, Christian, John Reid, Gerard,
> Peter. Miroslav Driml was present as an observer and also agreed. There were
> no abstentions or objections.
> This is proposed to replace the current charter.
> Charter
> The purpose of the OASIS XLIFF TC is to define specifications for extensible
> localization interchange vocabularies (i.e. formats, schemas)  that will
> provide the ability to mark up or capture localizable data and interoperate
> with different processes or phases without loss of information. The
> vocabularies will be tool-independent, standardized, and support aspects of
> the internationalization process and the entire localization process. The
> vocabularies will comprehensively support common software and content data
> formats. The specifications will provide an extensibility mechanism to allow
> the development of tools compatible with an implementer's own proprietary
> data formats and company culture.
>
>
>
>
> Peter Reynolds, Software Development Manager, Berlitz GlobalNET
> 3, West Pier Business Campus, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin, Ireland
> Tel: +353-1-202-1280
> Fax: +353-1- 202-1299
> Web Site: http//www.berlitzglobalnet.com
> "Don't just translate it, BerlitzIT" http//www.berlitzIT.com
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>