[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 David, That’s very possible. I was not there for the errata, and I haven’t checked. I just wanted to be sure Tom knew about it in case that was an issue for 2.0. But visibly it’s not. Cheers, -ys From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie] Yves, wasn't this addressed in the published errata for 1.2? i am not sure just that you remember seeing it somewhere, might it be the Errata? Cheers dF 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 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]