RE: [xliff] The Metadata module

[Ryan King <ryanki@microsoft.com>]

Hi Yves,

 

Thanks for the summary, that is also my recollection. And to be sure, this means that for 2.0, #1 and #2 are the point of record. #3 and #4 would then be 2.1 features, correct?

 

Additionally, do we want to remedy <res:resourceData> not being allowed on <group> as a module? Or will that forever be off-limits because it necessitates a change to core?

 

Thanks,

Ryan

 

From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 2:02 PM
To: XLIFF Main List
Subject: [xliff] The Metadata module

 

Hi all,

 

My recollection of the Berlin’s conclusion on that topic is that:

 

1.  Metadata is allowed only in the Translation candidate module.

2.  Using it in the extension points of the other modules is not valid.

3.  But we would like remedy this situation, and we would do this by creating new versions of the modules where Metadata would be allowed. (This affects only the modules, not the core)

4.  We would also add language in the specification that clarifies the fact that modules are valid only where the specification declare them.

 

Cheers,

-yves

 

From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Ryan King
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 6:03 PM
To: Schnabel, Bryan S (bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com)
Cc: 'xliff@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [xliff] Meeting agenda for next XLIFF call

 

Hi Bryan, you may have missed my comment in the chat on the XLIFF TC call, but I would like us to discuss whether <mda:metadata> can be allowed at all extension points in the next call and try to come to a consensus and look at having the proper clarifying language placed in the spec.

 

Thanks,

Ryan