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

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

Hi Yves,

How would you separate core from modules without using namespaces?

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf
> Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:02 AM
> To: 'XLIFF TC'
> Subject: RE: [xliff] Definition of "core" and "modules"
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org