[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: XLIFF 1.2.1 questions
Sample_AlmostEverything_1.2.1_strict.xlf contains a custom element before the <file>
The specification defines the <xliff> element contents as:
One or more
Therefore, the <tek:header> element must be AFTER <file>, not before it.
Do we want to keep this definition (and change the sample) or change the specification/schema to allow custom elements to be mixed with <file> elements within the <xliff> element?
(note: the transitional sample is OK because it does not have the <tek:header> element.)
On attribute "coord" the specification states that cx and cy represents the
width and height as in Windows resources. The schema allows signed integers
for cx and cy. However, the Windows resource specification
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms907882.aspx) states that width
and height are unsigned integers in the range from 1 to 65,535. What are
valid values here?
I don't understand why content of attribute "mime-type" should only
"roughly" correspond to the content-type of RFC 1341. It would be much
easier for implementers if it would strictly correspond to RFC 1341. Indeed
the schema allows values that are not valid according to RFC 1341 (e.g. type
"model", subtype is mandatory according to RFC 1341, schema allows
subtype-characters that are invalid according to RFC 1341). On the other
hand there are valid mime-types (according to RFC 1341) that are not allowed
by XLIFF-schema (for example "X-test/test"). Furthermore: while there is
some pattern-typing for attribute "mime-type", the related attribute "form"
is not typed this way. Is there a reason why "mime-type" and "form" are not
required to correspond exactly to RFC 1341?
Regarding attributes "minbytes" and "maxbytes" the specification states that
the "verification of whether the relevant text respects this requirement
must be done using the encoding and line-break type of the final target
environment". However, XLIFF 1.2 specification does not offer a dedicated
place where to store information on the target environment. Of course, a
tool can specify them using one of the extension points but that will affect
interchangeability in a negative way as implementers will do that in
different incompatible ways. What is the correct way to evaluate these