RE: [xliff] Migration Policy Document

["Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>]

Title: Message

Hi,

 

Gérard's analysis is excellent.

 

From what I can see, the issue as well touches our general thoughts on 1.1 and on conformity

because of the following:

 

For 1.1, we could envision a new data category along the lines of

 

<xliff version="1.1" retainUnknownMarkup="yes">

 

Next, we could use a conformance statement (cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-conformance)

to distinguish between different types of XLIFF processors which differ wrt. the following capabilities:

 

a) validation

b) handling of extensions (additional/private namespaces)

c) retention of unknown markup

 

Best,

Christian

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Cattin des Bois [mailto:gcatt@windows.microsoft.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 30. Juli 2002 19:10
To: Mark Levins/Ireland/IBM; Tony Jewtushenko <Tony.Jewtushenko
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] Migration Policy Document

Hello Mark,

You do have a good point.

In addition, we were also trying to determine how to sift thru additional tags that may be there from other tools/namespaces and removing them would hurt the workflow process in particular nodes in the food chain.

 

So, I see two discussions threads here: one the need to clearly validate an XLIFF file, and second, the need to process an xliff file without cleaning it up of unknown tags.

 

We were thinking about exposing explicitly those unknown tags via a private or public namespace so validation could still take place. This, however does not address the second issue, thus the statement to be able to retain those unknown tags from older tools/scripts using xliff data.

 

THis issue is also related to extensibility which Yves is driving.

Thanks,
-Gérard
Gérard Cattin des Bois
Lead Program Manager, LocStudio Services
Windows Productivity Tools Team
gcatt@microsoft.com  (425) 706-1592
Symptom and sign of Inner Peace: An unmistakable ability to enjoy each moment...

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Levins/Ireland/IBM [mailto:mark_levins@ie.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:18 AM
To: Tony Jewtushenko <Tony.Jewtushenko
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff] Migration Policy Document

Hi Tony, 

I've just one problem wrt the 
'Cross-release compatibility guidelines' section. In this section you state that 
"Tools must not delete data that it does not understand" and "Tools must 
preserve unknown elements in the file". If a tool is validating, using either 
Schema or DTD, these comments cannot be applied if the version of the XLIFF in 
the file is later than the tool supports or if the tool uses an earlier Schema 
or DTD. 
Perhaps the addition of 
something like "Tools should not try to validate later versioned XLIFF 
documents" might suffice. 

Regards, 
Mark

Tony Jewtushenko <Tony.Jewtushenko@oracle.com> 07/25/02 06:33 PM

To:        "xliff@lists.oasis-open.org" <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>         cc:                 Subject:        [xliff] Migration Policy Document

I've revised 
the document based on discussions over the past 
two
meetings.

Please reply with your 
comments by next Tuesday - if no major
contentious issues remain by then, 
 I will draft and distribute an email
ballot to approve the 
policy.

Regards,
Tony




--
Tony Jewtushenko   
 mailto:tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com
Sr. Tools Program Manager   
direct tel: +353.1.8039080
Product Management - Tools Technology 
Team
Oracle Corporation, Ireland




XLIFF 1.1 W.I.P. – 1.0 to 1.1 Migration Policy 

  

Version 
Information:

Version	Date	Author	Description
1.0	11 June 02	Tony Jewtushenko	Initial Document
1.01	24 July 02	Tony Jewtushenko	Revisions based on 23 July 2002 TC Meeting.

Document Conventions: 

The document is coded in the following way 
(adhering to Peter Reynolds's document convention): 


Greenif there is agreement 
Navy if more 
discussion is needed 
and redif it is contentious. 

Where I have made a change I have emphasised 
the changed word. 

  

  

Migration Policy Proposals: 

Rules for Major vs. Minor releases: 

Support for Existing Users: 

Rules for Name Changes: 

Impact of Migration 
on Users Organisations: 

Cross-release Compatibility 
Guidelines: 

User Migration Assistance 

Marketing, Public Relations and Education: 

  

Rules for Major vs. 
Minor releases:

• The Technical Committee will evaluate each individual release and classify it as  "Major" or "Minor" release.
• As a guideline,  "Minor" releases:

1. Shall be comprised of small changes that would not require re-certification of supporting tools or technologies
2. Shall deprecate but not remove any features present in the previous release.
3. Shall increment the version number to the right of the decimal point.

• As a guideline,  "Major" releases

1. May be comprised of significant architectural changes that may require re-certification of supporting tools and technology.
2. May delete features that were deprecated in previous releases.
3. Shall result in an increment to the version number to the left of the decimal point.

• In general, a Minor release will have stricter rules on changes than Major releases:  Minor releases usually be comprised of small and superficial changes and bug fixes to an existing specification rather than deep architectural changes, which would typically be implemented only for Major releases.
  
  Support for Existing Users:
  
  • Deprecated support for changed elements, values or attribute names, at least until next Major version number revision.
  • Enumerated lists are a potential issue if they are closed.   Therefore, no 1.1 lists will be closed if they existed as open lists in 1.0.
    
    Rules for Name Changes:
    
    • Name changes to required elements and attributes will be considered only if semantics change.
      
       
      
      Impact of Migration on Users Organisations:
      
      • Where appropriate, the TC will audit food-chain migration and compliance issues when deciding on architectural changes to 1.0.   The "food chain" describes the dependencies within related organization. For instance translators for a localisation vendor company, localisation engineers for the publishing company and software developers are all different point on the food chain, and may be affected differently by different types of changes.
      • Results of such an audit may influence the TC's release and migration strategy.
        
         
        
        Cross-release Compatibility Guidelines:
        
        • Tools designed to support Minor XLIFF releases should provide backward compatibility for files that adhere to the same major release specification.  For instance, tools that support version 1.1 files should be able to cope with 1.0
        • Tools designed to support XLIFF should not upgrade the version of a file without either warning the user or requiring explicit UI or command line setting.
        • Tools must not delete data that it does not understand.
        • Tools must preserve unknown elements in the file.
          
           
          
          User Migration Assistance
          
          • A Migration Policy Statement will be published as section of each specification.
          • A Migration guidelines white paper will be authored and provided as a deliverable of each release.
          • A  "Migration Support Kit" – containing Whitepaper, Sample Files,  and  possibly sample XSLT's  - will be made available for download at the XLIFF TC website.
            
             
            
            Marketing, Public Relations and Education:
            
            • Formal Marketing, Public Relations, and Education strategies and plans shall be devised as part of the rollout of new releases.
              
               
              
               
              
               
              
              
              #### Tony.Jewtushenko.vcf has been removed from this note on July 30 2002 by Mark Levins