Hi Yves,
How would you separate core from modules without using namespaces?
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf
> Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:02 AM
> To: 'XLIFF TC'
> Subject: RE: [xliff] Definition of "core" and "modules"
>
> Hi all,
>
> One more note:
>
> >> The namespace that corresponds to the core of XLIFF
> >> 2.0 is "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:2.0". All elements and
> >> attributes that belong to the core will be documented in the body of
> >> the XLIFF 2.0 specification
> >
> > Perfect.
> > ...
> >> Each module defined for XLIFF 2.0 must have its grammar defined in an
> >> independent XML Schema with a separate namespace.
> >
> > Good.
>
> I think using different namespaces for the core and the various modules is
> fine.
>
> It will make things more strict, which is good. And more clear, which is also
> good.
>
> But this is also going to make implementation more complex for the tools,
> not more simple (one of the 2.0 goals). It will force tools to actually
> implement namespaces, not assume one like many do today. And remember
> that many users (e.g. localization engineers who may have to tinker with
> XLIFF files) simply don't understand namespaces very well.
>
> I agree with Rodolfo on using namespaces, but I just want to be sure
> everyone realizes the trade-offs.
>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
