RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #01 - Extensibility and processing requirements

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

OASIS has rules for namespaces: http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.html . The namespaces we publish must be conformant. We cannot publish a namespace from W3C as our own. 

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf
> Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 6:31 PM
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #01 - Extensibility and processing
> requirements
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > XLIFF-defined should be read as "defined by the XLIFF TC".
> > The ITS group can propose an enhancement but cannot define an XLIFF
> > module, it has to be defined (probably based on an ITS
> > proposal) and approved by the XLIFF TC. Any module will have to use a
> > namespace defined by the XLIFF TC following the rules stated by OASIS.
> 
> Could you point us to those rules?
> I'd like to read them and likely provide some feedback to OASIS.
> 
> Why would OASIS have any rule on what a module should be made of? We
> use for example xm:lang in the core and in one module. We could use the ITS
> namespace in another module, as long as the core schema defines what goes
> where I don't see a reason for not using the ITS namespace itself in a
> module. It would go against the very idea of interoperability.
> 
> Regards,
> -yves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org