RE: [xliff] Thoughts on custom namespaces for extensions

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf
> Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 1:26 AM
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xliff] Thoughts on custom namespaces for extensions

Hi,
 
> If extensions are only used to implement features not defined by XLIFF they
> are no more of a threat to interoperability than modules.

Extensions are a threat, as they are not documented and require reverse engineering to achieve minimal interoperability. We can see today the interoperability disaster generated by extensions.

 
> So there are two questions:
> 
> 1) Should we allow extensions in XLIFF 2.0?

I would say no. Users also said no in the first symposium.

 
> 2) If the answer to 1) is yes, then should we use <metadata> or custom
> namespaces to implement extensions?

If the TC agrees on allowing extensions, I prefer <metadata> or any element set defined by the TC.

Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya       rmraya@maxprograms.com
Maxprograms       http://www.maxprograms.com