RE: [xliff] MIME-type for XLIFF

["Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>]

Hi Christian,

Version number in the MIME type could be interesting, especially if XLIFF 2.0 isn't backwards compatible.

Tool identification is not relevant if the generator only uses standard XLIFF elements and attributes. On the other hand, vendors of tools that incorporate custom elements and attributes in their XLIFF files should register their own custom MIME type. 

Regards,
Rodolfo 
--
Rodolfo M. Raya   <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
Maxprograms      http://www.maxprograms.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lieske, Christian [mailto:christian.lieske@sap.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 7:52 AM
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xliff] MIME-type for XLIFF
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> I see some usage scenarios for having a MIME-type registered for XLIFF.
> From an exchange between Asgeir and Friedel related to it (see
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200802/msg00011.html), I figured
> that the we would be looking at something like (quote from aforementioned
> exchange):
> 
> 	Unless (and until) the mime type is registered with IANA [1], it should
> 	probably be written as "application/x-xliff+xml".
> 
> I have two questions related to this:
> 
> 1. What are your views on possible optional or mandatory parameters such
> as the ones below?
> 
> 	a. version (e.g. 'version="1.2"')
> 		for the XLIFF version (patterned after the "level" in
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/vnd.wap-wml)
> 	b. 'originating-tool (e.g. 'originating-tool="tool"')
> 		for the XLIFF variant _produced_ by a certain tool (e.g. a
> certain Content Management System or Computer-Assistant Translation
> tool)
> 	c. source-only (e.g. 'source-only="yes"')
> 		for XLIFF which does not yet contain a "target" element
> 
> 	With this, we would get to XLIFF-related content types such as
> 
> 		application/x-xliff+xml;version="1.2";originating-
> tool="XLIFFCentral-Version0.9";source-only="yes"
> 
> 	Note: It would be great if we would refrain from a discussion along
> the lines of "We don't need for example an 'originating-tool' since
> 		any tool that produces or consumes XLIFF should work with
> any XLIFF variant". From my understanding, the First
> 		XLIFF Symposium in Limerick (see
> http://www.localisation.ie/xliff/) has provided evidence for the fact that
> statements
> 		like this would not reflect the current reality. Of course, the
> statement is a goal we want to reach in the end.
> 
> 2. What are your views on preparing registration as a MIME-type by providing
> a filled in registration template (see the filled in template for the W3C
> Internationalization Tag Set as example at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2009Jul/0011.html).
> 
> Best regards,
> Christian
> 
> 
>