RE: [xliff] Preserve XML attribute or metadata without extensibility

["Schnabel, Bryan S" <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com>]

> I think the cleaner option is to have no skeleton
> in the XLIFF document :) Just a pointer to it. Or
> even nothing at all (and let the tool work out the
> link using its package/manifest).

I recall this debate a few years ago. I think when the dust settled it was thought that the risk of the XLIFF file (accidentally) getting separated from its external skeleton file justified the internal skeleton option.

I can try to find this in the meeting minutes, or if any remember that debate, please feel free to chime in.

- Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:11 PM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] Preserve XML attribute or metadata without extensibility

> It certainly would make some tasks of 
> working with XLIFF much easier if the 
> skeleton were stored at the unit level.
> From a conceptual standpoint, I think it 
> is much cleaner than other options.

I think the cleaner option is to have no skeleton in the XLIFF document :) Just a pointer to it. Or even nothing at all (and let the tool work out the link using its package/manifest).

The question is: do we want XLIFF 2.0 to have an optional *standard* skeleton mechanism? (There is no such requirement in the feature list currently)

If the answer is yes, then having a place to store the skeleton between units would certainly be a clean and simple way to do it.

Note that it won't work easily with all file formats (try this with an IDML file for example, or a .NET satellite assembly).

Cheers,
-ys



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php