Re: [xliff] FW: [xliff-comment] Xliff 1.2 transitional schema validation

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

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

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

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"/>
                </xsd:sequence>

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.

Cheers,

-yves

xliff message