RE: [xliff] Migration Policy Document

[Mark Levins/Ireland/IBM <mark_levins@ie.ibm.com>]

I have some concern about the use of
the phrase 'unknown tags' or 'unknown markup' as I think they cause some
confusion. I think they may imply 'non-XLIFF tags', regardless of XLIFF
version and these cannot occur outside of our defined extension points
(using alternate namespaces).

I see two cases of 'unknown tags':
1. Tags unknown to a tool in a XLIFF
document for which the tool was designed, e.g. a tag inserted in XLIFF
at a point where extension is not allowed.
In this case unknown tags should not
be preserved as the tags are not valid XLIFF, nor constitute a valid part
of an XLIFF document and never will.
and 
2. Tags unknown to a tool but which
are valid for a later version of XLIFF.


Therefore I suggest that the two directives
be changed to

"For files created with and complying
to a later version of XLIFF, tools must preserve unknown elements in that
file"
"For files created with and complying
to a later version of XLIFF, tools must not delete data that they do not
understand"


Regards,
Mark

"Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com> 31/07/2002 13:05

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

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