RE: [xliff] Proposal for issue 103 (to enable a processor to implement only core): two versions of core schema

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

> What if we had two versions of the core schema,
> one that has the xi:include for the modules, and 
> one that does not (and of course each having a unique 
> namespace)? 
>
> XLIFF 2.0 (only) Core: urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:2.0
> XLIFF 2.0 Core + modules: urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:documentplusmodules:2.0

I'm pretty sure this is not a good idea to have two namespaces.
That would likely bring a massive amount of complications and confusions.


> This is harkens back the XLIFF 1.2 with its strict and 
> transitional schemas.

1.2 may have two schemas, but it has only one namespace.

The other problem with linking the solution to schemas is that not all tools are going to validate what element is allowed at a
given location using schemas. Remember that the schemas don't allow to validate for everything.

Cheers,
-yves