OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: XLIFF Support Survey Draft


It looks really great – could you please add one more question regarding segments?

With XLIFF 1.2 I saw that absolute majority of the tools had problems when the segmentation information was added. As parallel to this, I would like to know if the tools will have problems when number of segments will change (split/merge of segments).





SDL PLC confidential, all rights reserved. If you are not the intended recipient of this mail SDL requests and requires that you delete it without acting upon or copying any of its contents, and we further request that you advise us.

SDL PLC is a public limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 02675207.
Registered address: Globe House, Clivemont Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DY, UK.

From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Lucia Morado Vazquez
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 10:52 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] XLIFF Support Survey Draft


Dear all XLIFF TC members,


In the XLIFF Promotion and Liaison subcommittee we have been working on a new survey to gather XLIFF 2.0 support between tool developers.

I have created a draft that can be consulted on the following url:




If you have the time, could you review the draft of the survey before next TC meeting? Your input is very valuable and much appreciated.








Ps You can see below the original message explaining P&L subcommittee members how the survey was created:




As announced in the last P&L subcommittee meeting, we have been working on the set of questions for the XLIFF 2.0 support survey.


I have created a document where you could review the questions, those based on constraints or processing requirements of the spec begin with a different numbering system (starting from [101]…). https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cV2re9dZuVJMfDWKT6vaSGicwZF8ewS_GqkcpXMkZpU/edit?usp=sharing

I have followed the following logic to enunciate the questions:

must/required/must not/discourage/does not need  ->  does your tool…

may/ should/ should not   ->   can your tool…

I have also prepared another document from the spec for you to see the relationship between the specific processing requirement or constraint and the number of question (they are in red, you can just make a quick search by question number). https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzV6T7Z8ectbTKx0XgGfD11-kb6FHLwP512okRQzSXo/edit?usp=sharing There were some processing requirements and constraints that I could not turn into questions, I have turned them in red, so you can easily spot them on that same document. I have not included any question from sections 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9.


If you have the time, could you review the draft of the survey? Your input is very valuable and much appreciated. Once it will be reviewed, I will create the survey in an online system and it will be tested before launching the survey.


Thank you very much,






Click here to report this email as spam.

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]