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

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

I agree with Yves, the skeleton should not be included in the XLIFF file. If it is stored outside, the XLIFF file is smaller and easier to handle. A pointer to the skeleton should be enough.

Defining a "standard" skeleton format seems not possible to me. We could define an official "package" format that includes the XLIFF document, skeletons and, optionally, other relevant data.

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:11 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