I think option 2 would work well especially
if there is one in the three that is "open" implementation.
From:
"Kevin O'Donnell"
<
kevinod@microsoft.com>
To:
"xliff@lists.oasis-open.org"
<
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
06/28/2013 08:09 PM
Subject:
[xliff] Reference
implementations for XLIFF 2.0
Sent by:
<
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
I would like to re-start the discussion
of reference implementation requirements for XLIFF 2.0. This topic was
discussed at the f2f in London, but I don’t believe we reached any final
decision/conclusion.
As I recall, there was some debate about
the official requirements for reference implementation – it appeared unclear
whether we must have reference implementation for everything in
the 2.0 standard (each and every module). While that approach would provide
optimal assurance and confidence in the standard, it would be difficult
to find commitment for extensive implementation work from likely implementers
in the near future.
We discussed the various options, which
included (to the best of my memory):
1. Only publish modules
in 2.0 that have been proven and implemented; anything not implemented
would be cut
2. Ask 3 implementers
to supply simple proofs of their implementation of XLIFF 2.0 (loosely defined)
– i.e. meet the minimum requirements for OASIS
3. Wait until all modules
have been provable implemented and delay XLIFF 2.0 publication until such
time
There may be other options – please share
if there are. However, of the above, option #2 seems the most pragmatic
and realistic to me, given the desire to finalize and publish XLIFF 2.0
this year. Option 1 risks publishing a piece-meal standard, while Option
3 risks delaying XLIFF 2.0 significantly. For option 2, there is a risk
that some implementation detail in XLIFF 2.0 will not be caught prior to
publication, but I believe that is better addressed in a future XLIFF 2.1
version.
Do we have confirmation of the OASIS requirements
for reference implementations, with specific detail? If so, can we take
a decision on the approach to achieving the appropriate level of reference
implementation to meet the timeline that Bryan has created?
Thanks,
Kevin.