Very good architecture from my point of view on the elements. My instinct on attributes is to be more inclusive. I see extensibility on attributes to be less likely abused (maybe I'm wrong about that), and more likely to be useful. Therefore I wonder if it might be better to assume all elements can have extensible attribute *unless* there's a reason to exclude them?
Thanks,
Bryan
________________________________________
From: [] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel []
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:31 PM
To:
Subject: [xliff] Extension points
I had an action item to come up with an initial list of extension points.
Here is an initial proposal:
--- For elements:
I propose to allow element extension point at the following locations:
- In <file> just before the first <unit>.
- In <unit> just before the element's closing tag.
- In <segment> just before the element's closing tag.
- In <ignorable> just before the element's closing tag.
This happens to match what Rodolfo defined for <metadata> so far. I think this make sense, as it's logical to allow both <metadata> and custom namespaces at the same locations since both are extension mechanisms.
- In addition we already have an element extension point in <skeleton> (and no <metadata> there, which also make sense).
--- For attributes:
I propose to allow extension points for the following elements:
In <xliff>, <file>, <unit>, <segment>, <ignorable>, <source> and <target>.
As well as in <match> in the Matches module.
I have also an action item to do about the processing expectations, that'll come later.
Cheers,
-yves
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
