[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] A Burgeoning Initiative
I'd be happy to provide updates on this effort.
To respond to Helenaís question about UBL, we spent about a month working with UBL before determining that it was actually not suitable for what we were doing. UBL worked on a different paradigm (it was aimed more at business transactions while we were looking at project metadata) and was extremely complex to implement. While the complexity is a one-time hit on the developer (subsequent users of a UBL-compliant format donít see that complexity), we found that the mismatch between our needs and the UBL model combined with the complexity of UBL were too great in the end. Alan Melby had a developer working on trying to create UBL-compliant schemas for the project metadata portion for about a month before we concluded that it was a dead-end for us. This accounts for some of the delay in becoming more public since the project was agreed upon on March 1 in Danvers, MA.
Finally, I second Yves' note: We would invite all parties interested in constructive dialogue on this topic to join the discussion there.
On Jun 24, 2011, at 09:53 , Helena S Chapman wrote:
Arle is also involved in that project, I believe. Initially, it was discussed to integrate whatever the results this "container" team would produce into OASIS' UBL TC. Not a clue if that's still the case. The original intent is to standardize on all the metadata associated with a content package as you described.