Re: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 public review comments

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com> wrote:

There is a a typo in the sentence at the end of section 3 (delete the extraneous s in presvious):

Conformant applications are NOT REQUIRED to support XLIFF 1.2 or presvious Versions.

Other than that looks ok to me.

Martin.

From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]
Sent: 04 August 2013 16:04
To: Martin Chapman
Cc: xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 public review comments

Martin, all, sorry for confusion, resending this from my official address..

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:33 AM, David Filip <davidf@davidf.org> wrote:

Martin,

sorry for our prolonged silence.

In response to your comments and following the discussion in the TC on May 21, 2013 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201305/msg00019.html

we have made the following changes to the spec:
- UPPERCASED the normtaive keywords and changed the front matter respectively

- Indicated that backwards compatibility with XLIFF 1.2 is not REQUIRED.
- made sure that all normative references are used in the body and all body references called out as normative or non normative in the References sections 1.2 and 1.3

Please let us know if everything seems alright with you in the editor's copy https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/xliff/trunk/xliff-20/xliff-core.pdf

David Filip, Ph.D.
=====================
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
mailto:davidf@davidf.org
www.davidf.org, http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfatdavidf

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com> wrote:

In my role as a TAB member I was asked to review XLIFF 2.0. These comments are individual and do not represent any consensus of the TAB.

Document reviewed:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.0/csprd01/xliff-core-v2.0-csprd01.zip

The TAB are trialling a checklist to aim for consistency across reviews. I have attached my responses, I hope they make sense.

There are only two areas that should be fixed.

1: please check that all references are listed in the references section. There were some references to Unicode in the document that were not listed in the ref section. Same for ISO 8601

Also make sure all references are used in the body of the spec.

2.In the conformance section add a statement about compatibility with xliff 1.x e.g. applications [are/are not] required to support xliff 1.x and xliff 2.0 – something like that.

Let me know if anything needs clarified.

Cheers,

Martin.

--

Martin Chapman | Standards Strategy & Policy EMEA
Mobile: +353 87 179 0627

ORACLE Ireland

Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

--
This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC.

In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
before posting.

Subscribe: xliff-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
Unsubscribe: xliff-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
List help: xliff-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/
Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
Committee: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xliff
Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/

xliff message