RE: [xliff] XLIFF 1.2 Draft

Title: Message

Hi 
Tony,

 

> 
There's a section at the end of the spec that iterates 

> 
through all the modification since last spec...

Ah, 
very good.  I skipped this part.  This is very 
useful.

 

I 
forgot to comment on the fact that you included a DTD version of the 1.2 
Schema.  I know many people are comfortable with DTDs (myself 
included).  But I think it might be a big mistake to include the DTD.  
Much of the strength of the specification cannot be supported or enforced with a 
DTD.  DTDs cannot support strong Type definitions.  DTDs cannot 
(effectively) support extensibility, or namespaces.  DTDs do not support 
the distinctions we make between strict, lax, and skip when it comes to 
namespaces and extension points. Etc.,

 

I 
think it's nice that you did the extra work to create the DTD, but I think we 
shouldn't include it.

 

Thanks 
again for doing all this,

 

Bryan

 

 

  

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jewtushenko 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, 
  October 12, 2005 7:38 AM
To: Schnabel, Bryan S; 
  
Subject: RE: [xliff] XLIFF 1.2 
  Draft

  
Hi 
  Bryan: 

  

Thanks for the feedback. The 
  URI for the schema pointing to the file:///blahblah ..  location was a 
  typo.  Good work finding this problem! - it must have been introduced by 
  one of the tools I used to validate the sample file. I'll fix this in the next draft,  to be 
  distributed before the next teleconference.

  
 

  
By the way, you didn't mention the "equiv-trans" 
  attribute - I assume you were not reporting on all diffs,  just the ones 
  you ran across in your review?  There's a section at the end of the 
  spec that iterates through all the modification since last 
  spec...

  
 

  
Regards,

  
Tony

  
 

  
 

  
    

    
-----Original Message-----
From: 
     [mailto:] 
    
Sent: 12 October 2005 01:14
To: 
    ; 
    
Subject: RE: [xliff] XLIFF 1.2 
    Draft

    
Hi 
    Tony,

    
 

    
You've done an excellent job updating the schema.  Thank you 
    very much for all you've done.

    
 

    
I 
    tested and validated the schema, and I tested and validated the two 
    samples.  Things look very sound from an XML point of 
    view.

    
 

    
I 
    noticed you changed the "Sample_AlmostEverything_1.2.xlf" file to refer to a 
    schema location that is hard-coded to an absolute 
    path:

    
 

    
xsi:schemaLocation="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:1.2 
    

    
file:///c:/xliff/xliff-core-1.2-draft/xliff-core-schema-1.2.xsd"

    
^^^^

    
 

    
I 
    think the sample would be better if it referenced a relative path, at the 
    same level as the file, like this:

    
 

    
xsi:schemaLocation="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:1.2 
    

    
xliff-core-schema-1.2.xsd"

    
 

    
This made it easier to validate for me.  I also validated 
    several of my voluminous XLIFF files.  They worked just 
    fine.

    
 

    
As 
    far as the schema updates, they all look fine to me.  The changes I 
    could spot had to do with adding "seg" and 
    "seg-source" elements, adding the  "merged-trans" attribute, and adding 1.2 to the AttrType_Version type definition.  It all looks correct to 
    me.

    
 

    
I 
    hope in the next few days I can introduce the new elements and attribute 
    into my samples for further validation.

    
 

    
Thanks for all you've done,

    
 

    
Bryan

    
 

    
      

      
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony 
      Jewtushenko [mailto:] 
      
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:32 AM
To: 
      
Subject: [xliff] XLIFF 1.2 
      Draft

      
Hi all: 
      

      
 

      
I've attached 
      the draft XLIFF 1.2 spec to this email.  There were a lot more 
      modifications than I had expected so instead of voting on it in a ballot 
      we need to first review it,  and if its ready we can vote on it live 
      in the next TC meeting.

      
 

      
It's important 
      that you have a good lok at the spec, the XSD and the 
      sample files.  I've also generated a DTD from the XSD (automatically 
      using a shrinkwrapped XML IDE) and its included in the ZIP file.  If 
      we intend to deliver a 1.2 DTD with our spec then it should be reviewed 
      carefullly as well.  I don't think we published a 1.1 DTD,  and 
      please correct me if I'm misinformed, so your comments about its 
      relevance are encouraged.

      
 

      
 

      
Regards,

      
Tony

      
 

      
Tony Jewtushenko 

      
Director- R&D - Product Innovator Ltd. (Ireland) 

      
P: +353.1.8875183; M: +353.87.2479057; W: www.productinnovator.com