Hi,
The tree needs maintenance. There is also a problem with the way the need for either a <group> or <unit> is required in <file>.
There are also other known changes to do in the specs/schemas:
Review the elements that accept extensions (in the F2F meeting it was suggested to remove extensions from <segment>)
Complete the examples marked as "TODO"
Add links in the specification documents to the schemes
Define the members to include in the "Acknowledgements" section (voting members?, active members?, whom?)
Automate the preparation of a zip package for ballot/upload
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 - dF Sanity Check of the spec - question for
the editors #001
From: "Dr. David Filip" <>
Date: Thu, October 25, 2012 10:56 am
To:
Hi Rodolfo, Yves, all
quality checking the spec to see if I can extract a list of processing requirements validation tests. [However I do not want to discuss this now. If you wish, please do so in a separate thread.]
This series of numbered threads is meant to ask a single simple question at a time. It might happen that they trigger broader discussion but they are not intended so :-)
In the tree structures throughout the spec you consistently use
+---<any> +
IMHO this would mean that implementers must use at least one proprietary extension at all extension points, which seems odd
Do we want to say
+---<any> *
throughout the spec?
Thanks for your attention
dF
Legend:
1 = one
+ = one or more
? = zero or one
* = zero, one or more
Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto:
