[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] possible issue with URN prefixes used to define acceptable namespaces in XLIFF 2.1
This would allow only ITS processor that support external rules to work with the file. (But it's already the case for the data categories using the supplemental its-xliff namespace anyway).
We would simply define a rules file with all the rules mapping the XLIFF ITS module to ITS.
A pure ITS processor would just use that file.
The XLIFF processors implementing the ITS module would not need to use it.
Fredrik suggestion has several advantages:
- It decouple ITS and XLIFF namespaces
- We would need only a single namespace for the module (doing the job for both the ITS one and the supplemental one)
- It would allow both namespaces to evolve (be updated) separately if needed
Neither OASIS nor the W3C have to agree with anything here: it's just the XLIFF TC creating a new module and using ITS the way it's used for many other formats: through mapping.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 12:15 PM
Subject: [xliff] possible issue with URN prefixes used to define acceptable namespaces in XLIFF 2.1
I started working on preparing the working draft for incorporation of the newly approved features.
This is issue might be relevant for both ITS support and advanced validation.
In order to support many ITS categories as XLIFF defined modules we will need to include the ITS namespace among XLIFF defined namespaces.
We did that using URN prefixes in XLIFF 2.0, which is not an issue for OASIS namespaces as OASIS does maintain a persistent URN structure.
However w3c apparently stopped caring for URNs back in 2005 or even earlier.
Now how do we go about accepting these two namespaces:
ITS 2.0 namespace
In the XLIFF TC teleconference, Fredrik and Yves, suggested that we define 1 or 2 OASIS namespaces, XLIFF module namespaces similar to this one:
that will include the subset of the ITS attributes and maybe also elements actually used..
I am not opposed to that as it would allow us to stick to the URN prefix convention that we use in XLIFF 2.0
Fredrik, Yves, would you care to explain how would this work (if at all) with generic ITS processors that would expect the original w3c namespace?
Would we need to include a mapping rule in the XLIFF root?
I hope that we can agree how the solution would work technically so that we can propose the solution to the W3C ITS IG and discuss if this is acceptable from the W3C point of view.
Thanks and regards
Dr. David Filip
OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, and Liaison Officer
LRC | CNGL | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland