RE: [xliff] SC feedback: Validation

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

Hi Fredrik,

XLIFFChecker is a Java application and you can find executable versions for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux in my web site. The source code is also available for download, so you can run it on any platform where java is supported. 

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 Estreen, Fredrik
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:38 AM
> To: Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xliff] SC feedback: Validation
> 
> Hi Yves, All,
> 
> I'm strongly in favor of using a schema as the primary way to validate Xliff
> documents. I do not like the idea to rely heavily on external applications to
> do the validation.
> 
> For the purpose of testing applications for standards conformance including if
> they abide to the processing expectations set forth in the standard I do
> endorse a separate application. That is likely the only reasonable path to
> take.
> 
> The reason that I do not want it for the everyday validation by Xliff
> supporting applications is that it will most likely not be portable. I doubt that
> the TC has the resources to develop and maintain validation tools and
> libraries useable by any application on any platform that might want to
> validate Xliff. If no tool is provided for a platform it would lead to applications
> not validating or developing their own validation code. Even if there is a
> reference source code available the new implementations might (or in my
> experience will) behave differently leading to many definitions of valid in the
> field.
> 
> I would propose doing a schema in XML Schema 1.0 and another one
> augmented by the extensions provided by XML Schema 1.1. This should be a
> relatively "simple" task since 1.1 will interpret a 1.0 schema the same way it
> worked before. So it should be technically possible to just augment the 1.0
> version with the new features. This would give us a basic validation that
> works for almost all cases today and a better validation that will become
> available to applications as the new schema becomes available on their
> platform or framework. To reduce the initial work we should probably wait
> with doing 1.1 until we have a reasonably stable 1.0 version.
> 
> Regards,
> Fredrik Estreen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf
> Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: den 20 december 2011 12:52
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xliff] SC feedback: Validation
> 
> 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
>