OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

Hi Tony,

> Bryan: would it be difficult or too time
> consuming to make the change as
> Doug describes?

This would not be too difficult. But given the fact that I'm on West
Coast US time, and that I will need to work it into my schedule today, I
cannot promise that I would get it done in time for you to roll it into
a 1.2 spec package, and send it out in time for most of our TC to review
it today (i.e., most of our group would *hopefully* be relaxing at home
by the time it gets to be afternoon here in Oregon).

I will work on this today and get it to you as soon as I can. If you'd
rather not wait, and feel you should send out the final revision without
my sample schema, that's completely understandable, and supported by me.

Thanks,

Bryan

Hi Bryan: 

If it's not complicated then I think it's worth waiting an extra few hours.
If you can send it out by your end of day today I will roll it into a spec
package tomorrow morning and put together a ballot for it immediately.

Thanks for your work on this.

Regards,
Tony




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
From: bryan.s.schnabel@exgate.tek.com
[mailto:bryan.s.schnabel@exgate.tek.com] 
Sent: 24 October 2006 17:58
To: tony.jewtushenko@productinnovator.com; ddomeny@ektron.com;
asgeirf@gmail.com; xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] Section 2.5.4 Validating Documents with
Extensions - needs revision

Hi Tony,

> Bryan: would it be difficult or too time 
> consuming to make the change as
> Doug describes?

This would not be too difficult.  But given the fact that I'm on West
Coast US time, and that I will need to work it into my schedule today, I
cannot promise that I would get it done in time for you to roll it into
a 1.2 spec package, and send it out in time for most of our TC to review
it today (i.e., most of our group would *hopefully* be relaxing at home
by the time it gets to be afternoon here in Oregon).

I will work on this today and get it to you as soon as I can.  If you'd
rather not wait, and feel you should send out the final revision without
my sample schema, that's completely understandable, and supported by me.

Thanks,

Bryan



                                            

Bryan, et al.,

After analysis, I now recommend processContents="strict" for the strict
schema. All modified files are attached.

                        strict         lax w/ xsd      lax w/o xsd
                    valid  invalid    valid  invalid    valid
StylusStudio 2006  correct correct   correct valid     correct
MSXML 4 DOM        correct correct   correct valid     correct
MSXML 6 DOM        correct correct   correct valid     correct
Saxonica 8.7       correct correct   correct valid     correct
.NET XML           correct correct   correct correct   error
Xerces-J 2.5.1     correct correct   correct valid     correct
XSV 2.10-1         correct correct   correct valid     error†

† if URI returns error 404					

As you can see, "lax" for most of the parsers is the same as "skip" and
therefore useless except in .NET parser, which acts like "strict".

The most help comes from using "strict" and providing the schema.

The change is to add the tek schema to documents that use the tek:
namespace.

Sample_AlmostEverything_1.2_strict.xlf

Hi Doug: 

I didn't get the attachment - was it omitted?

Regards,
Tony



                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
From: Doug Domeny [mailto:ddomeny@ektron.com] 
Sent: 25 October 2006 15:08
To: bryan.s.schnabel@exgate.tek.com; tony.jewtushenko@productinnovator.com;
asgeirf@gmail.com; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] Section 2.5.4 Validating Documents with
Extensions - needs revision

Bryan, et al.,

After analysis, I now recommend processContents="strict" for the strict
schema. All modified files are attached.

                        strict         lax w/ xsd      lax w/o xsd
                    valid  invalid    valid  invalid    valid
StylusStudio 2006  correct correct   correct valid     correct
MSXML 4 DOM        correct correct   correct valid     correct
MSXML 6 DOM        correct correct   correct valid     correct
Saxonica 8.7       correct correct   correct valid     correct
.NET XML           correct correct   correct correct   error
Xerces-J 2.5.1     correct correct   correct valid     correct
XSV 2.10-1         correct correct   correct valid     error†

† if URI returns error 404					

As you can see, "lax" for most of the parsers is the same as "skip" and
therefore useless except in .NET parser, which acts like "strict".

The most help comes from using "strict" and providing the schema.

The change is to add the tek schema to documents that use the tek:
namespace.

Sample_AlmostEverything_1.2_strict.xlf