Yves, wasn't this addressed in the published errata for 1.2? i am not sure just that you remember seeing it somewhere, might it be the Errata?
Cheers
dF
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:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Yves Savourel <> wrote:
Hi Tom,
Notes are inline…
For our 2.0 efforts, I have scripts to parse both the documentation and the schema, to find discrepancies between them. I can’t guarantee that it will catch every problem, but it’s a useful backup to our collective diligence. Similarly, to ensure consistency the tree diagrams will be generated directly from the schema, as soon as I work out a few details.
YS> Great. Sounds like a much better way to get the schema and the specification synchronized.
As for the original problem report in 1.2, it is as described. The documentation for the <xliff> element says:
One or more <file> elements, followed by
Zero, one or more non-XLIFF elements.
while the schema says:
<xsd:sequence maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:any maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" namespace="##other" processContents="skip"/>
<xsd:element ref="xlf:file"/>
</xsd:sequence>
I’m not sure what the appropriate response would be. And I’m not sure what it says about current implementations that the issue is only reported now.
YS> I vaguely recall that somewhere there is a statement say which one of the schema or the specification wins if there is a difference like here. Or maybe we added that for 2.0?
In any case: adding elements outside <file> is probably not a very good practice since files can be split per <file> by some tools. So that’s probably why nobody caught this before.
Cheers,
-yves
