Re: [xliff] RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 1.2 errata, questions and comments

On Wednesday 23 July 2008 02:58:00  wrote:
> As for your question about the spec trumping the schema when there are
> differences, I think that is a good rule.  This one of the reasons I'd
> really like to get an official working draft version of XLIFF 2.0 passed
> and posted.  Not only would it be a start for the new features we're
> developing, it would also give us an "official" place to post fixed
> versions of the XSD that Doug has been quick to make.  I will propose to
> the TC that we make penning and passing a working draft, along with working
> draft XSDs a TOP priority.

I'm wondering if it better to branch into 1.3 (or 1.2.1) AND 2.0 at this 
point, where the 1.X branch is backwards-compatible to 1.2, and the 2.0 branch 
can safely break backwards-compatibility. This is essential to support some of 
the suggested features such as "a bare-bones XLIFF core, then provide 
extension modules...". This will also give 1.2 implementers a way of safely 
updating to a stable 1.2.x rather than directly to a fluffy new 2.0.

Just a though.

cheers,
asgeir