OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [xliff] Unified XML schema for XLIFF 2.0


That sounds very reasonable to me. I think it would be very beneficial in terms of ensuring access to the relevant schema data at all times. Since tools could ignore the parts they don't want to use, I don't see a downside. We would, of course, want to make sure that we document this not only in the specification but in the schema as well, so there will be some additional commenting required in the schema, but I don't see that as unreasonable.


On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:11 , Rodolfo M. Raya wrote:

At this moment we have 2 approved features in the wiki that should live in their own modules: translation candidates and glossaries.
We need 3 XML schemas and one catalog for representing the core plus the 2 modules if we keep module definitions in their own schemas. When a module uses elements from the core (that’s the case with translation candidates), we have circular references between the schemas and that’s nasty.
If we merge all three schemas and keep separate namespaces, we get rid of the catalog and validation of XLIFF 2.0 documents will be much easier.
With a unified schema we can still have each optional module living in its own namespace. Tools that only support core features would be able to work with the main namespace, ignoring all others without suffering validation problems.
There are two other aspects to consider:
-          Maintenance will be easier
-          We don’t get criticism for having multiple schemas as was the case with XLIFF 1.2
Do you agree on merging all 3 schemas into one?
Rodolfo M. Raya       rmraya@maxprograms.com

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]