RE: [xliff] Definition of "core" and "modules"

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Hi all, 

One more note:

>> The namespace that corresponds to the core of XLIFF 
>> 2.0 is "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:2.0". All 
>> elements and attributes that belong to the core 
>> will be documented in the body of the XLIFF 2.0 
>> specification
>
> Perfect.
> ...
>> Each module defined for XLIFF 2.0 must have its 
>> grammar defined in an independent XML Schema with 
>> a separate namespace.
>
> Good.

I think using different namespaces for the core and the various modules is fine.

It will make things more strict, which is good. And more clear, which is also good.

But this is also going to make implementation more complex for the tools, not more simple (one of the 2.0 goals). It will force tools to actually implement namespaces, not assume one like many do today. And remember that many users (e.g. localization engineers who may have to tinker with XLIFF files) simply don't understand namespaces very well.

I agree with Rodolfo on using namespaces, but I just want to be sure everyone realizes the trade-offs.

Cheers,
-yves