Re: [xliff] Proposal for ballots on: Extensibility in XLIFF 2.0

-Arle


	Arle Lommel Standards Coordinator GALA Standards Initiative ☎: +49.30.23895.1834 (Germany) / +1.707.709.8650 (USA) Skype: arle_lommel Time zone: Central European Time (UTC+1 / UTC+2 in summer) LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/arlelommel	The GALA Standards Initiative promotes the effective use of standards for international and multilingual content, builds awareness of best practices for their implementation, and helps the localization community make open standards work.

Sic scripsit Estreen, Fredrik in May 4, 2012 ad 12:16 :

Hi All,

as discussed earlier in the week I propose two ballots to decide the overall direction for third party extensibility of XLIFF 2.0. I’m looking for a second of these proposed votes.

First ballot:
Shall we allow any third party extensions in XLIFF 2.0?
* 'Yes' for extensibility by some means
* 'No' for no extensibility at all
* 'Abstain' for need of more discussion

Second ballot to be held only if the result of the first was ‘Yes’:
What general method(s) do we want to allow for third party extensions?
* 'Elements' for extensibility by elements and attributes defined in the XLIFF specification. An example of this method is the proposed <metaHolder> feature.
* 'Namespaces' for extensibility by allowing third party namespaces at defined locations in the XLIFF documents. As we do in XLIFF 1.2 possibly with additional requirements for conformance and processing expectations.
* 'Elements and Namespaces’ to use both of the above methods to facilitate extensibility.
* 'Abstain' for need of more discussion

Once we have decided if and how we want extensibility we can proceed to work out the technical details.

Regards,
Fredrik Estreen

xliff message