Hi Bryan,
This is funny. I thought the controversial part of this was mentioning
again our not agreeing with XLIFF being 'part 2 of MLIF'. I will do as
Yves and Rodolfo suggested and make sure that I am not committing us to
anything.
Thanks,
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: Schnabel, Bryan S [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 3:59 PM
To: Rodolfo M. Raya;
Subject: RE: [xliff] Liaison report for TC 37
Hi All,
We've not had an official vote to not allow custom extensions. We've had
a lot of discussions about how this would solve a lot of problems
regarding conformance. But I cannot recall that we've discussed the
implications of removing extensions (for me, I like the idea, but many,
many questions would need to be answered first).
- Bryan
________________________________________
From: Rodolfo M. Raya []
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:31 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [xliff] Liaison report for TC 37
Hi Yves,
I remember that in a meeting after the XLIFF Symposium we decided not to
allow custom extensions but I can't tell you when that happened.
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya <>
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 7:53 AM
> To: 'Peter Reynolds';
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [xliff] Liaison report for TC 37
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> > I have written the attached report which I would appreciate you
> > looking at and coming back if there is anything you disaprove of.
>
> Thanks for sharing the report.
>
> It seems some of the statements about what 2.0 will be are a bit
premature:
>
> "(XLIFF 2.0)... will add some new functionality. The approach being
> taken is that XLIFF 2.0 will be modular. Tool providers will not be
> able to create extensions which lead to different flavours of XLIFF.
> The tool providers have supplied the XLIFF TC with details of the
> extensions to XLIFF which they have developed and these will be
incorporated into XLIFF 2.0 where appropriate."
>
> For example I don't recall that we formally decided to not allow
> extensions in 2.0, or that we decided to incorporate new
> functionalities, or incorporate some specific tool extensions.
>
> I'm not saying 2.0 will not be as you describe, but simply that we are
> still very much discussing all those aspects (except maybe the
modularity approach).
> Maybe changing most of the "will" by "may" would be more accurate.
>
> Cheers,
> -ys
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
