[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Can we decouple the question of custom extensions from a metaHolder approach?
Hi, FWIW, I don’t like the idea of having markup from non-XLIFF namespaces in XLIFF files. I don’t care if they are open or not. In the only place I would accept non-XLIFF markup is the skeleton. Regards, Rodolfo -- From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Schnabel, Bryan S Yesterday it dawned where some of the discomfort with the metaHolder approach *might* be coming from. While I had been seeing it as an alternative to proprietary custom namespaces (like the ones we track at http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/ under the heading of XLIFF 1.2 Extensions), it did not occur to me that it could/would also be seen as preventing the use of non-proprietary namespaces (like ITS, LIS, HTML, etc.). Sorry for being slow on this one. So I wonder if we could decouple the controversy of disallowing custom extensions from the metaHolder approach conversation; and then separately propose a new module along the lines of “Enable Open Standard Namespaces”? This could be optional of course, and we could *try* to include namespaces from vetted open standards – and not include support for proprietary namespaces like the ones on the list I mentioned before (which by the way, includes my own custom extension for my own open source tool). - Bryan |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]