OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

  • 1.  Input to discussion on Conformance

    Posted 10-25-2010 13:28
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     Hi there,
     
    I promised to send some input to the discussion. You find it below.
     
    Some additional explanations/remarks:
     
    • The proposal clearly distinguishes between files and applications: This enables very targeted communication related to conformance. Of course, there is some overlap between a file that meets certain conformance criteria, and an application that processes it.
    • I guess the details for B.3 and B.4 will take some time to be developed – ultimately, they are the processing requirements/expectations we have been discussing on several occasions.
    • My understanding is that the conformance clauses for the 1.2.1 errata would only pertain to Conformance Type 1 – if I recall correctly, we decided not to address processing requirements for the errata. For a possible future version of XLIFF, we could include conformance clauses for both conformance types.
    • I patterned the proposal after http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#conformance and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/12572/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf
    • I think that the proposal captures the gist of http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF1.2/Errata#ConformanceClauses . However, the proposal is more flexible – it allows providers of XLIFF files and applications to make very targeted statements. This should allow interested parties to clearly figure out if a certain type of interoperability already is possible or not.
    • I think that the proposal can fulfill the methodological requirements that David has formulated.
     
    I am tempted to suggest that we restrict the current discussion related to conformance to the conformance clause(s) we need for the 1.2.1 errata – we thus would only talk about Conformance Type 1 (as indicated this is how I remember a decision we have already made). Otherwise, the scope may be too broad.
     
    Cheers,
    Christian
    ===
    Two types of conformance are defined:
     
    1. conformance of XLIFF markup declarations
    2. conformance of processing requirements for XLIFF markup
     
    These conformance types complement each other. An implementation of this specification MAY use them separately or together.
     
    1. Conformance Type 1: Markup Conformance
     
    XLIFF markup declarations encompass all declarations that are part of XLIFF.
     
    Documents that conform to the XLIFF specification MAY make use of extensibility mechanisms as defined by the XLIFF specification. These documents are called extended XLIFF documents.
     
    Documents that conform to the XLIFF specification MAY contain elements and attributes not specified within the XLIFF schema. Such elements and attributes must
    not be part of a namespace that is defined within this specification and are called foreign elements and attributes.
     
    Conformant XLIFF documents MUST be valid instances of at least one of the official XML Schemas (Strict or Transitional) that are part of the XLIFF specification.
     
    The following levels of conformance to XLIFF Markup Declarations are defined:
     
    1. Markup conformance n-un: no foreign elements and attributes; unextended
    2. Markup conformance n-e: no foreign elements and attributes; extended
    3. Markup conformance f-un: foreign elements and attributes; unextended
    4. Markup conformance f-e: foreign elements and attributes; extended
     
    Markup conformance n-un is called “strict markup conformance”, markup conformance f-e is called “basic markup conformance”.
     
    1. Conformance Type 2:  Processing Conformance
    Processors MAY need to carry out computations based on XLIFF markup. In addition, processors MAY need to carry out computations modifying XLIFF markup. The XLIFF processing requirements define which computation has to be carried out. The requirements are defined by conformance clauses.
    The following conformance criteria for XLIFF Processing are defined:
     
    1. Prcoessing conformance r (read):
    Conforming applications MUST read documents that are valid against at least one of the official XML Schemas (Strict or Transitional) that are part of the XLIFF specification if all foreign elements and attributes are removed before validation takes place.
    1. Processing conformance w (write):
    Conforming applications either MUST write documents that are valid against the XLIFF schema if all foreign elements and attributes are removed before validation takes place.
    1. Processing conformance r-p (read and process):
    Conforming applications MUST implement the following processing based on XLIFF markup after having read a conformant XLIFF document:
    1. maintain information about the processing of the file via the phase element
    1. Processing conformance w-p (write and process):
    Conforming applications MUST implement the following processing based on XLIFF markup when writing a conformant XLIFF document:
    1. Fill the “tools” elements
    2. Update …
     
    Conforming applications that read and write documents MUST not alter elements, attributes or values originating in XLIFF’s extensibility mechanisms.
     
    Conforming applications that read and write documents MUST preserve foreign elements and attributes.
     
     


  • 2.  RE: [xliff] Input to discussion on Conformance

    Posted 10-25-2010 14:08

    Hi,

    In my personal opinion, XLIFF documents are either conformant or not. It does not matter if the file has custom extensions or not. Valid or invalid, these should be the only two possible qualifiers for conformance of XLIFF documents. Creating 4 categories is a very bad idea.

    Regarding application conformance:  an application that writes XLIFF files should write valid XLIFF. It does not matter if it has custom extensions or not. Our conformance statement should not include a clause like “if all foreign elements and attributes are removed before validation takes place.”

    Regards,

    Rodolfo

    --

    Rodolfo M. Raya   <rmraya@maxprograms.com>

    Maxprograms      http://www.maxprograms.com

    From: Lieske, Christian [mailto:christian.lieske@sap.com]
    Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 11:27 AM
    To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: [xliff] Input to discussion on Conformance

     Hi there,

     

    I promised to send some input to the discussion. You find it below.

     

    Some additional explanations/remarks:

     

    • The proposal clearly distinguishes between files and applications: This enables very targeted communication related to conformance. Of course, there is some overlap between a file that meets certain conformance criteria, and an application that processes it.
    • I guess the details for B.3 and B.4 will take some time to be developed – ultimately, they are the processing requirements/expectations we have been discussing on several occasions.
    • My understanding is that the conformance clauses for the 1.2.1 errata would only pertain to Conformance Type 1 – if I recall correctly, we decided not to address processing requirements for the errata. For a possible future version of XLIFF, we could include conformance clauses for both conformance types.
    • I patterned the proposal after http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#conformance and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/12572/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf
    • I think that the proposal captures the gist of http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF1.2/Errata#ConformanceClauses . However, the proposal is more flexible – it allows providers of XLIFF files and applications to make very targeted statements. This should allow interested parties to clearly figure out if a certain type of interoperability already is possible or not.
    • I think that the proposal can fulfill the methodological requirements that David has formulated.

     

    I am tempted to suggest that we restrict the current discussion related to conformance to the conformance clause(s) we need for the 1.2.1 errata – we thus would only talk about Conformance Type 1 (as indicated this is how I remember a decision we have already made). Otherwise, the scope may be too broad.

     

    Cheers,

    Christian

    ===

    Two types of conformance are defined:

     

    1. conformance of XLIFF markup declarations
    2. conformance of processing requirements for XLIFF markup

     

    These conformance types complement each other. An implementation of this specification MAY use them separately or together.

     

    A.       Conformance Type 1: Markup Conformance

     

    XLIFF markup declarations encompass all declarations that are part of XLIFF.

     

    Documents that conform to the XLIFF specification MAY make use of extensibility mechanisms as defined by the XLIFF specification. These documents are called extended XLIFF documents.

     

    Documents that conform to the XLIFF specification MAY contain elements and attributes not specified within the XLIFF schema. Such elements and attributes must

    not be part of a namespace that is defined within this specification and are called foreign elements and attributes.

     

    Conformant XLIFF documents MUST be valid instances of at least one of the official XML Schemas (Strict or Transitional) that are part of the XLIFF specification.

     

    The following levels of conformance to XLIFF Markup Declarations are defined:

     

    1. Markup conformance n-un: no foreign elements and attributes; unextended
    2. Markup conformance n-e: no foreign elements and attributes; extended
    3. Markup conformance f-un: foreign elements and attributes; unextended
    4. Markup conformance f-e: foreign elements and attributes; extended

     

    Markup conformance n-un is called “strict markup conformance”, markup conformance f-e is called “basic markup conformance”.

     

    B.       Conformance Type 2:  Processing Conformance

    Processors MAY need to carry out computations based on XLIFF markup. In addition, processors MAY need to carry out computations modifying XLIFF markup. The XLIFF processing requirements define which computation has to be carried out. The requirements are defined by conformance clauses.

    The following conformance criteria for XLIFF Processing are defined:

     

    1. Prcoessing conformance r (read):

    Conforming applications MUST read documents that are valid against at least one of the official XML Schemas (Strict or Transitional) that are part of the XLIFF specification if all foreign elements and attributes are removed before validation takes place.

    1. Processing conformance w (write):

    Conforming applications either MUST write documents that are valid against the XLIFF schema if all foreign elements and attributes are removed before validation takes place.

    1. Processing conformance r-p (read and process):

    Conforming applications MUST implement the following processing based on XLIFF markup after having read a conformant XLIFF document:

                                                                 i.            maintain information about the processing of the file via the phase element

                                                               ii.           

    1. Processing conformance w-p (write and process):

    Conforming applications MUST implement the following processing based on XLIFF markup when writing a conformant XLIFF document:

                                                               ii.            Fill the “tools” elements

                                                              iii.            Update …

                                                              iv.           

     

    Conforming applications that read and write documents MUST not alter elements, attributes or values originating in XLIFF’s extensibility mechanisms.

     

    Conforming applications that read and write documents MUST preserve foreign elements and attributes.

     

     



  • 3.  RE: [xliff] Input to discussion on Conformance

    Posted 10-25-2010 17:35
    Hi, 
    
    I would agree with Rodolfo.
    As long as they are well-formed, and only in the places where XLIFF allow them, custom extensions shouldn’t matter for conformance.
    It seems also logical that we have a binary result: either a conformant document or a non-conformant one.
    
    For processing conformance: I think it’s important to have processing expectations and express them in clear clauses in the specification. But it seems that this goes beyond what OASIS sees as “conformance”, and we could treat this separately?
    
    I think we are going to have difficulties to validate processing conformance. We could offer a set of input files in different formats and a corresponding set of XLIFF documents that illustrate the processing expectations, but beyond that I don’t think we could have a tool that automatically verifies if the XLIFF document follow them or not.
    
    Cheers,
    -ys
    
    
    


  • 4.  RE: [xliff] Input to discussion on Conformance

    Posted 10-25-2010 17:53
    > 


  • 5.  RE: [xliff] Input to discussion on Conformance

    Posted 10-26-2010 10:12
    Hi Rodolfo, Yves, all,
    
    Thanks for your comments.
    
    One thing I derive from it is that you like my suggestion to treat processing requirements separately. So I suggest to continue the discussion with a focus on what I suggested to call " Markup Conformance".
    
    I understand the points you make about the four types of Markup Conformance - I would completely agree if the state of existing implementations would be different from what was depicted in the presentations at the XLIFF Symposium. However, I think - given the current state of affairs - the fine grained distinction which I propose is important:
    
    	It enables very targeted communication related to conformance. It allows providers of XLIFF files and applications to make very targeted statements. 
    
    This allows interested parties to clearly figure out if a certain type of interoperability already is possible or not. They will be able to figure out whether for example a tool chain involving tool A and tool B is viable (e.g. since both tools "only" conform to "n-un") - since for example information that is carried in extensions will survive/can be utilized.
    
    Cheers,
    Christian
    
    


  • 6.  RE: [xliff] Input to discussion on Conformance

    Posted 10-26-2010 11:22
    >