RE: [xliff] Metadata extensibility ballot

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Hi Kevin, all,

> - Projects like MultilingualWeb-LT are working on many 
> data categories that are related to localization process.
> That is just one example. The point is: XLIFF does not work 
> in a vacuum, and 2.0 needs to be flexible enough to take 
> into account other standards that are relevant. 
> Namespaces are the perfect mechanism for this.

I'd like to expend on ITS 2.0 (the work I mentioned above) a bit more as I was at the MultilingualWeb-LT workshop the past three days and we discussed the use of XLIFF quite a bit.

My overall feel is that XLIFF is seen as an important medium in various scenarios where the upcoming ITS 2.0, as well as other vocabularies, are going to be used. As such it is really part of a wide set of formats that are integrated together. It doesn't exist alone and I think we should accommodate that fact.

Using metaHolder to map non-XLIFF data is going to work only to some extent. One example: ITS 2.0 is looking at a data category that would store QA errors. Such information is just not easily mapped to a simple key/value list, its better handled with elements. And the only way to have having extension elements is through namespaces.

There are other examples like that, and as a general concern, the metaHolder cannot handle all types of extensions that different companies/groups will use.

I would argue that the case for a future-ready 2.0 is stronger than a very-safe-but-very-limited 2.0. We need to define a 2.0 that will be in full use 5-10 years from now. And namespaces are part of that picture.

Cheers,
-yves