[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Minimum set of container elements for XLIFF 2.0
Once again your words make sense.
But I think the starting points you mentioned were exactly that, starting points.
And I think the goal to simplify (within reason and without doing harm) is very valid and should be taken into account as a working principle. And I can see how one could interpret the proposed minimum set of required elements proposal as counter to that principle.
The counterpoint is that one could also argue that the elements mentioned are reasonable and add value for readability and process-ability -- and to remove them would add ambiguity. As I said before, that's a judgment that the TC will need to make.
So this brings me to your statement that I completely sympathize with:
> I think it would be appropriate to mention a feature request
> and explain the reasoning behind it in a TC meeting before
> adding it to the wiki
We do not have such a policy in place. In fact, we encourage people to add proposed features to section 2 of the wiki, with no restrictions.
I can see your wish (and my wish) to stop adding features and get XLIFF 2.0 published. One way toward this is to invoke a policy like the one you suggest, and to attach strict criteria for qualifying to add a new feature. Another way is to revisit the idea of setting a calendar date goal. I can see pros and cons with each.
If you want to propose a change in policy, please feel free to bring it up on the list, or have me add it to the agenda, under current business. I think it's a worthy cause.
Last year I submitted a schema plus a descriptive PDF for review with the minimum required elements. The PDF and the schema were approved by the TC as starting point and the draft currently in SVN is based on that work.
One of the goals for XLIFF 2.0 is “simplify”. The current draft emphasizes that by not including elements that don’t provide useful content.
Yves’ request for grouping was added to the wiki and we never discussed it due to lack of time for technical work during our regular meetings. If it is approved for implementing, the corresponding element set will be added to the specification.
Your brand new proposal , (B34) “Minimum set of container elements”, was not discussed yet by the TC. Notice that it contradicts what we managed to minimally discuss and approve before as starting point.
I may be wrong, but I think it would be appropriate to mention a feature request and explain the reasoning behind it in a TC meeting before adding it to the wiki. We have items in the wiki that are not moving forward and we must start cleaning the list of features. It’s about time we stop adding feature requests and concentrate our efforts working on approved stuff. If we keep adding features, we will not be able to complete the specification in a reasonable time.