I did more investigation and found that I cannot create a unified schema and keep 3 different namespaces.
The only solutions I have at hand for solving circular references in the candidates proposal schema would be:
1) Duplicate definitions of <source>, <target> and all inline elements in the candidates schema. This is something I don’t like at all.
2) Move <source>, <target> and all inline elements to a separate schema to be imported by the main one and the candidates schema.
If we keep <matches> and <match> as core features we don’t have to duplicate element definitions or split the main schema.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Rodolfo M. Raya
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:11 PM
To: 'XLIFF TC'
Subject: [xliff] Unified XML schema for XLIFF 2.0
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 firstname.lastname@example.org