[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 1.2 errata, questions and comments
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 02:58:00 bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com wrote: > As for your question about the spec trumping the schema when there are > differences, I think that is a good rule. This one of the reasons I'd > really like to get an official working draft version of XLIFF 2.0 passed > and posted. Not only would it be a start for the new features we're > developing, it would also give us an "official" place to post fixed > versions of the XSD that Doug has been quick to make. I will propose to > the TC that we make penning and passing a working draft, along with working > draft XSDs a TOP priority. I'm wondering if it better to branch into 1.3 (or 1.2.1) AND 2.0 at this point, where the 1.X branch is backwards-compatible to 1.2, and the 2.0 branch can safely break backwards-compatibility. This is essential to support some of the suggested features such as "a bare-bones XLIFF core, then provide extension modules...". This will also give 1.2 implementers a way of safely updating to a stable 1.2.x rather than directly to a fluffy new 2.0. Just a though. cheers, asgeir
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]