On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:12:16 -0400
"Doug Domeny" <> wrote:
Hi,
> I agree that the last (unwritten) part about accepting XLIFF files
> generated/processed by other tools is difficult.
Perhaps we should separate generated from processed. The part
that deals with processed could be something like:
XLIFF is a format explicitly designed for exchanging data. Thus, a
conformant XLIFF application MUST be able to accept XLIFF files it
generated after those XLIFF files have been processed by a different
tool, provided that: a) processed files are conformant XLIFF
documents and b) any custom extension added by the originating tool
has been preserved.
> With this in mind, I would suggest rewording " conformant applications
> SHOULD preserve existing custom extensions " to " conformant
> applications MUST preserve existing custom extensions ".
At first, I agree with your proposal. It would make the b) part of the
proposal I wrote above unnecessary. However, I'm not sure about this.
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya <>
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
