OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [xliff] FW: [xliff-comment] Xliff 1.2 transitional schema validation behaviour with extended nodes

Hi Tom,


Notes are inline…


For our 2.0 efforts, I have scripts to parse both the documentation and the schema, to find discrepancies between them. I can’t guarantee that it will catch every problem, but it’s a useful backup to our collective diligence. Similarly, to ensure consistency the tree diagrams will be generated directly from the schema, as soon as I work out a few details.


YS> Great. Sounds like a much better way to get the schema and the specification synchronized.



As for the original problem report in 1.2, it is as described. The documentation for the <xliff> element says:

One or more <file> elements, followed by

Zero, one or more non-XLIFF elements.

while the schema says:

                <xsd:sequence maxOccurs="unbounded">

                                <xsd:any maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" namespace="##other" processContents="skip"/>

                                <xsd:element ref="xlf:file"/>


I’m not sure what the appropriate response would be. And I’m not sure what it says about current implementations that the issue is only reported now.


YS> I vaguely recall that somewhere there is a statement say which one of the schema or the specification wins if there is a difference like here. Or maybe we added that for 2.0?


In any case: adding elements outside <file> is probably not a very good practice since files can be split per <file> by some tools. So that’s probably why nobody caught this before.




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]