RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 - dF Sanity Check of the spec - question for the editors #001

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

Hi,

 

The tree needs maintenance. There is also a problem with the way the need for either a <group> or <unit> is required in <file>.

 

There are also other known changes to do in the specs/schemas:

 

1. Review the elements that accept extensions (in the F2F meeting it was suggested to remove extensions from <segment>)
2. Complete the examples marked as "TODO"  
3. Add links in the specification documents to the schemes
4. Define the members to include in the "Acknowledgements" section (voting members?, active members?, whom?)
5. Automate the preparation of a zip package for ballot/upload
   

Regards,

Rodolfo

--
Rodolfo M. Raya <RMRAYA@MAXPROGRAMS.COM>
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com

 

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 - dF Sanity Check of the spec - question for
the editors #001
From: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Thu, October 25, 2012 10:56 am
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org

Hi Rodolfo, Yves, all

quality checking the spec to see if I can extract a list of processing requirements validation tests. [However I do not want to discuss this now. If you wish, please do so in a separate thread.]

This series of numbered threads is meant to ask a single simple question at a time. It might happen that they trigger broader discussion but they are not intended so :-)

In the tree structures throughout the spec you consistently use

+---<any> +

IMHO this would mean that implementers must use at least one proprietary extension at all extension points, which seems odd

Do we want to say

+---<any> *

throughout the spec?

Thanks for your attention

dF

Legend:

1 = one

+ = one or more

? = zero or one

* = zero, one or more

Dr. David Filip

=======================

LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS

University of Limerick, Ireland

telephone: +353-6120-2781

cellphone: +353-86-0222-158

facsimile: +353-6120-2734

mailto: david.filip@ul.ie