OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

  • 1.  ITS Module URI

    Posted 11-26-2014 14:08
    Hi all, I'm not sure if the discussion about the ITS module URI is settle or not: Is it "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:itsm:2.1"?    Or "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1"? I'd like to fix our source code, samples and tests once for all. Thanks, -yves


  • 2.  Re: ITS Module URI

    Posted 11-26-2014 14:14
    Hi Yves, the last mail I saw on this is here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Nov/0029.html and we did not have a call or other mails on this later. Like you wrote on above mail I am also fine with both. - Felix Am 26.11.2014 um 15:07 schrieb Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>: > Hi all, > > I'm not sure if the discussion about the ITS module URI is settle or not: > > Is it "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:itsm:2.1"? > Or "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1"? > > I'd like to fix our source code, samples and tests once for all. > > Thanks, > -yves > > > > > >


  • 3.  Re: ITS Module URI

    Posted 11-26-2014 14:35
    On 26.11.2014 15:13, Felix Sasaki wrote: > the last mail I saw on this is here > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Nov/0029.html > and we did not have a call or other mails on this later. Like you wrote on above mail I am also fine with both. I'm probably coming to late at the party, but using URL instead of URN would be better IMHO, as there could be some documentation put on that URL. URNs tends to confuse people. Jirka -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Professional XML and Web consulting and training services DocBook/DITA customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing ------------------------------------------------------------------ OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 rep. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bringing you XML Prague conference http://xmlprague.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Attachment: signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature


  • 4.  RE: ITS Module URI

    Posted 11-26-2014 16:59
    I agree Jirka. But I think the URN is the official OASIS way: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3121 Cheers, -ys
    Original Message


  • 5.  Re: [xliff] RE: ITS Module URI

    Posted 11-26-2014 17:21
    Re: > But I think the URN is the official OASIS way:  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3121 Caveat: I didn't review the context (your application space), but in general, and in the abstract: URNs are not the "official" way to construct identifier components.   It's true that some OASIS TCs (especially, those TCs started in years before 2005) use URNs, for various purposes, but OASIS Staff does not currently recommend that practice.  Both methods work, for some purposes.  But not for others. Please see the guidance provided in the OASIS Naming Directives, where the use of HTTP scheme URI references are discussed, for XML namespace names and for any (related) kinds of identifiers  8. XML Namespace Identifiers and Namespace Documents http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/ndr/namingDirectives.html#xml-namespaces "Non-information resources using identifiers associated with XML namespaces may be based upon any HTTP scheme URI XML namespace declared by the TC ( i.e. , identifiers for named properties, functions, dialects, faults, actions, or any named message types)" -rcc On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Yves Savourel < ysavourel@enlaso.com > wrote: I agree Jirka. But I think the URN is the official OASIS way: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3121 Cheers, -ys
    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: [xliff] RE: ITS Module URI

    Posted 11-26-2014 18:31
    Thanks for the correct Robin. It’s good to know this.   In the case of XLIFF 2 I’m afraid it’ll have to stick with URNs for a while as 2.0 has a processing requirement that involve looking at the start of the namespace URIs to make the difference between XLIFF modules and user extensions.   Cheers, -yves     From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:20 AM To: Yves Savourel Cc: XLIFF Main List; public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org; Robin Cover Subject: Re: [xliff] RE: ITS Module URI   Re:   > But I think the URN is the official OASIS way:  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3121   Caveat: I didn't review the context (your application space), but in general, and in the abstract:   URNs are not the "official" way to construct identifier components.   It's true that some OASIS TCs (especially, those TCs started in years before 2005) use URNs, for various purposes, but OASIS Staff does not currently recommend that practice.  Both methods work, for some purposes.  But not for others.   Please see the guidance provided in the OASIS Naming Directives, where the use of HTTP scheme URI references are discussed, for XML namespace names and for any (related) kinds of identifiers    8. XML Namespace Identifiers and Namespace Documents http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/ndr/namingDirectives.html#xml-namespaces   "Non-information resources using identifiers associated with XML namespaces may be based upon any HTTP scheme URI XML namespace declared by the TC ( i.e. , identifiers for named properties, functions, dialects, faults, actions, or any named message types)"   -rcc   On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Yves Savourel < ysavourel@enlaso.com > wrote: I agree Jirka. But I think the URN is the official OASIS way: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3121 Cheers, -ys
    Original Message


  • 7.  Re: [xliff] RE: ITS Module URI

    Posted 11-26-2014 19:12
    >  have to stick with URNs for a while Sure: difficult to switch horses in the middle of the stream. Best wishes, - Robin --  Robin Cover OASIS, Director of Information Services Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink Email:  robin@oasis-open.org Staff bio:  http://www.oasis-open.org/people/staff/robin-cover On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Yves Savourel < ysavourel@enlaso.com > wrote: Thanks for the correct Robin. It’s good to know this.   In the case of XLIFF 2 I’m afraid it’ll have to stick with URNs for a while as 2.0 has a processing requirement that involve looking at the start of the namespace URIs to make the difference between XLIFF modules and user extensions.   Cheers, -yves     From: Robin Cover [mailto: robin@oasis-open.org ] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:20 AM To: Yves Savourel Cc: XLIFF Main List; public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org ; Robin Cover Subject: Re: [xliff] RE: ITS Module URI   Re:   > But I think the URN is the official OASIS way:  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3121   Caveat: I didn't review the context (your application space), but in general, and in the abstract:   URNs are not the "official" way to construct identifier components.   It's true that some OASIS TCs (especially, those TCs started in years before 2005) use URNs, for various purposes, but OASIS Staff does not currently recommend that practice.  Both methods work, for some purposes.  But not for others.   Please see the guidance provided in the OASIS Naming Directives, where the use of HTTP scheme URI references are discussed, for XML namespace names and for any (related) kinds of identifiers    8. XML Namespace Identifiers and Namespace Documents http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/ndr/namingDirectives.html#xml-namespaces   "Non-information resources using identifiers associated with XML namespaces may be based upon any HTTP scheme URI XML namespace declared by the TC ( i.e. , identifiers for named properties, functions, dialects, faults, actions, or any named message types)"   -rcc   On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Yves Savourel < ysavourel@enlaso.com > wrote: I agree Jirka. But I think the URN is the official OASIS way: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3121 Cheers, -ys
    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: [xliff] ITS Module URI

    Posted 12-03-2014 13:02
    Hi all, So, we had some discussion on this topic. We can't use URLs. But the main question remains: Should the ITS module URI be "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:itsm:2.1" or "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1"? David uses the first (the one with "itsm") in the current draft. I don't think it makes too much sense, but it doesn't really matter what string is used and at this point it would be nice to just have a resolution. I propose that if no-one object by the end of this week it's the one David used in the draft. Cheers, -yves
    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: [xliff] ITS Module URI

    Posted 12-03-2014 13:57
    I second this CFD I used itsm everywhere where it relates to the module and ITS or its, where it relates to the w3c recommendation. Although I agree that the actual string used is arbitrary, the itsm string seems better for the general uniformity and consistency AFAIK and IMHO Cheers dF is AFK, so please bear with the typos and call me at +353860222158 if my answer seems insufficient.. On Dec 3, 2014 1:02 PM, "Yves Savourel" < ysavourel@enlaso.com > wrote: Hi all, So, we had some discussion on this topic. We can't use URLs. But the main question remains: Should the ITS module URI be "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:itsm:2.1" or "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1"? David uses the first (the one with "itsm") in the current draft. I don't think it makes too much sense, but it doesn't really matter what string is used and at this point it would be nice to just have a resolution. I propose that if no-one object by the end of this week it's the one David used in the draft. Cheers, -yves
    Original Message


Related Content