RE: [xliff] SC feedback: Validation

Hi Andrew,

We already discussed the use of RelaxNG and discarded it. There is no need to discuss again at this time because the XML grammar technology has not changed since we decided to go with XML Schema and ignore RelaxNG.

Check section 3 of the tracking page in our wiki, http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking

Regards,

Rodolfo

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

From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Pimlott
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 7:56 PM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff] SC feedback: Validation

My overall thought: I think schema validation is great, but not the highest priority. What I mean is that we should minimize the risk that creating the schema becomes a bottleneck or point of contention. It's far more important that we agree on the data model and semantics of XLIFF 2.0, than that we have a perfect schema for it. One, we have plenty of work to do already. Two (as Rodolfo notes in the cited link), not everything can be expressed in a schema anyway.

How this affects us depends on our level of schema expertise. Clearly, between Rodolfo, Yves, and probably others, we can create XML Schemas. But it's hard for me to gauge our overall competency. Can the Schema masters announce themselves?

I ask because I've seen groups get bogged down when only a couple people could update the schema, or some case turned out to be particularly tricky. I don't want this to happen to us. I would rather have a loose schema plus additional wording in the spec, than a tight schema that slows us down.

As to the schema language, based on my limited experience I would take RelaxNG in a heartbeat, and volunteer myself to become expert at it. However, since XML Schema seems to have more currency than RelaxNG, and XLIFF 1.2 already used XML Schema, I don't know if it's the right choice. I won't argue strongly for it. As for XML Schema 1.0 versus 1.1, I'm not sure it's wise to rely on 1.1 before it's approved by the W3C.

Andrew

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

Hi everyone,

During the last inline SC meeting we discussed the validation for XLIFF:

Which mechanism to use (schema or schema + dedicated tool), if XSD which version, what about RelaxNG? How much of this should be taken into account when designing our formats, etc.

There was a consensus that this needs to be bring up at the TC level and settled soon so we can know the guideline when working on the specification.

There has been some discussion of this before.
e.g. Rodolfo email here:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201111/msg00046.html

cheers,
-yves

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org

xliff message