OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [xliff] RE: Filenaming

Since the naming convention is a draft, we may have to rename later no matter what we do. I agree with Tony that we should not rename now but wait for some finality on the naming convention. However, we do need to make sure that we are pointing at the latest documents and that the links work properly. 

My original question was whether we should address the June 25 revision of the spec rather than the May 22 revision, which is the one we referenced in the earlier version of the Peer Review Announcement. The May 22 revision points at the June 25 revision as the latest, which could cause some confusion as to what should be reviewed. I like making the reference in the Announcement generic, as proposed by Tony in his latest Peer Review Announcement proposal. 

The links in the proposed announcement have two issues, as I see it:

1. The link to the spec finds no document: 
This is caused by an inadvertent space at the end of the URL. The corrected URL is below.

2.- The link to the white paper requires a login:
Shouldn't this poiint to a public area of OASIS, if this is an at-large peer review?

(Tony and Yves, thanks for all your efforts on this. If there is anything I can do to help out, please let me know.)


>>> Tony Jewtushenko <tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com> 8/6/03 5:36:51 AM >>>
Yves - hold off on any renaming for now.

I see four options for document naming:

   1. Leave the names as they are,  change them only if peer-review /
      standards approval process flunks us on the basis of the document

            * Advantage is that we don't have to make any changes,  and
              existing applications continue to reference the document.
            * Disadvantage is that this may lead to issues being raised
              during peer review,  possibly leading to rejection of the
              spec on the basis of the doc naming convention.  And we
              will ultimately need to rename,  if/when the spec becomes
              an approved OASIS standard.

   2. Physically rename all the documents now.

            * Advantages:  naming convention doesn't become an issue
              during peer / standards review processes;  we define a
              process for renaming that can be used in the future.

            * Disadvantages:  work required renaming and editing
              documents;  rename will impact existing implementations
              that reference the online XSD document

   3. Create URL's that logically reference the existing documents -
      leave physical document names as they are.

            * Advantages:  Low impact,  superficial modification.
               Existing implementations unaffected.
            * Disadvantages:  Doesn't address the root problem - naming
              convention could still become an issue during peer review
              that leads to rejection;   Will still need to rename
              physically if/when XLIFF becomes a standard

   4. Create a second version of the documents - maintain originals as well 

            * Advantages:  Moderate level of work.  Addresses naming
              convention requirements;  Existing implementations unaffected.
            * Disadvantages:  Creates a level of uncertainty which could
              lead to confusion - which document names do implementors
              reference;  Complicates rollout of future revisions;
               Potential for documentation getting out of sync;

I'm recommending option #1 as the best course of action - we will 
address the naming convention issue at the end of the peer review 
period,  if and when it becomes an issue.  Renaming in haste is a bit 
too risky,  and could create technical problems during the peer - review 
period.  It's very likely that we'll have to change the names after the 
peer review concludes,  before we submit to OASIS for standards review. 
 Over the next 45 days we must develop a plan for renaming with minimum 
disruption and re-work. After we've renamed the spec & supporting 
documents (by mid - Sept),  we'll have a ballot to accept the renamed 
and possibly revised documents as Committee Specification and supporting 

Any comments / disagreements / alternative suggestions?

If there's no further discussion on the issue of renaming,  then below 
is the proposed text of the XLIFF 1.1. peer review announcement that I 
intend to have Karl distribute on Friday.  Feel free to comment - but 
please be aware that I'm planning to send this to Karl tomorrow 

    OASIS members, XML developers, standards and localisation industry

    The OASIS XLIFF TC has approved XLIFF 1.1 as a Committee
    Specification, and now starts a 45 day public review prior to
    submitting this specification to OASIS members for consideration as
    an OASIS Standard, in accordance with "Section 2 Standards Process"
    of the OASIS Technical Committee Process document (see

    The public review starts 11 Aug and ends 24 September 2003.

    Link to the XLIFF 1.1 Specification documents are available at:

    Link to XLIFF 1.1 Schema is available at:

    Link to XLIFF 1.1 Whitepaper is available at:

    Comments are welcome from all interested parties and may be
    submitted to the XLIFF comment list:

    Persons who are not subscribed to this list may post comments to it
    but will have to confirm the message via a token return.

    Any comments made can be viewed at

Gerard Cattin des Bois wrote:

>I agree. This naming convention needs revisiting. 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:19 AM
>To: Tony Jewtushenko
>Cc: XLIFF list
>Subject: [xliff] RE: Filenaming
>>Looks like we'll have to change the name of the spec to conform to the 
>>OASIS naming conventions.  Any chance you can do that over the next 
>>couple of days,  or if not can you send the doc to me and I'll do it?  
>>I could make the changes and forward to the webmaster by Thurday.
>I can make the changes:
>1- Rename the latest revision of 1.1 to xliff-core-1.1-cs.htm and the revision copy xliff-core-1.1-cs-4.htm (it will be the fourth revision).
>2- Change the content of xliff-specification.htm to list the various versions and link to them.
>3- Rename the schema to xliff-core-schema-1.1-cs.xsd
>Note the change #3 has more implications than renaming the specification document. Tools have been already developed for 1.1 and have pointers to the schema's URL. It's also all over the example in the specification document.
>We'll have to update it too. I don't think having two copies is a good thing, but it's an XSD file, not a HTML and can't be re-directed. Maybe doing an include of the new file would solve the problem, or should we just forget about allowing graceful modification.
>The URL will apparently also change once again when it becomes an OASIS
>standard: will it have also to be modified in the specification then? It is a little messy to have a public schema URL that keeps changing.
>I'll do this tomorrow, except contrary notice.
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/leave_workgroup.php 

Tony Jewtushenko					mailto:tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com 
Principal Product Manager				direct tel: +353.1.8039080
ST Tools Technology Team
Oracle Corporation, Ireland

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]