[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Extensibility
Hi Rodolfo, all, > ...Badly used extensibility is what we have today. Just for the record: We don't have *only* bad extensions in v1.2. I've seen quite a few that are perfectly fine: They are representing features not in the specifications and are not preventing tools which don't know about them to work properly. > Extensions are not mainly used to overcome shortcomings > in the spec as you say. They are used to hold data > that the specification already handles well. That's why I was saying: "...having extensibility in XLIFF is fine. But: a) they should not be used for duplicating features that already exist in XLIFF..." > We have three basic options for dealing with extensibility: > 1) Forbid custom extensions; > 2) Allow extensibility without restrictions, as happens today; > 3) Allow extensibility with clear regulations. > Option 2) is what users don't like. We do agree: It's not that "users think that extensibility is bad for XLIFF", it's just that they want extensions to be used properly. > We don't have a set of well written regulations for > opting for option 3) yet. > Unless we get a really good proposal for regulating > extensibility, the only choice left is 1). Option 1 is "forbid custom extensions", yet you are proposing along with Bryan a <metaHolder>/<meta> mechanism that is a way to define custom extensions. For example nothing would prevent a tool to store match quality information there. I absolutely agree we do need clear and strict rules on how to use extensions, but that is regardless what our mechanism for extension is (i.e. using <meta> or custom namespaces). > I'm looking forward to your email on implementing > extensions the right way. I hope your proposal helps > eliminating current bad practices. I'm looking forward to your and Bryan's proposal on exactly that too, since you are proposing a custom extension mechanism :) For example how do we prevent tools to use <metaHolder>/<meta> to store quality match in there? Whatever the rules are, they can be applied with either <metaHolder>/<meta> or custom namespaces. So here is a start: - Extensions MUST not be used to represent existing XLIFF features. - Extensions MAY be placed in the following locations: <here goes the list of allowed extension points TBD>. - Extensions SHOULD have a corresponding public schema that can be used for documentation and validation. - User agents MUST skip the validation of un-documented extensions. Cheers, -yves
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]