OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

  • 1.  RE: [xliff] 2.0 Binary Data Module Proposal

    Posted 11-16-2012 09:36
    Hi Ryan,   One of the things we dropped on purpose from XLIFF 2.0 was support for binary stuff. It was agreed that those that need to handle binary pieces can continue using XLIFF 1.2, as upgrading to 2.0 is not mandatory. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com    


  • 2.  RE: [xliff] 2.0 Binary Data Module Proposal

    Posted 11-16-2012 15:46
    Hi Ryan and Rodolfo, I tired to find the minutes around our binary discussion, but I didn't find that conversation. I recall the discussion went something like "since nobody uses it - it must not be worth supporting." From my point of view, we've now seen binary used in a very mainstream way. I think our previous discussion was that it would not be in core. But I see no reason why we shouldn't consider binary as a module. In fact I'd say that's exactly the kind of thing modules are for. I support this proposal. Thanks, Bryan ________________________________ From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] on behalf of Rodolfo M. Raya [rmraya@maxprograms.com] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:35 AM To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] 2.0 Binary Data Module Proposal Hi Ryan, One of the things we dropped on purpose from XLIFF 2.0 was support for binary stuff. It was agreed that those that need to handle binary pieces can continue using XLIFF 1.2, as upgrading to 2.0 is not mandatory. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com


  • 3.  Re: [xliff] 2.0 Binary Data Module Proposal

    Posted 11-16-2012 21:32
    Ryan, Bryan, Rodolfo, all I support the bin unit module, as proposed. I agree that the Sharepoint team provided a valid use case. This even allows for cascaded use of XLIFF, whereas the content owner does not need to bother for complexities of low level extraction at their end. The module while elaborated upon could eventually consider providing some basic tooling for the cascaded handling.. The sole reason why bin unit was dropped was that it did not appear as used in any survey (MIcah Bly, SC surveys, Asanka's corpus - which is however not representative at this point. I believe that the bin unit scenario will become fairly mainstream with SharePoint 2013. The average corporate portal user will not have access to good office filters to facilitate extraction, so that the office content will enter the LSP nicely packaged as bin unit.. Microsoft expressed support to the 2.0 migration in a very unambiguous way in Seattle, and I see Ryan's series of proposals as a necessary consequence of that statement. We should not tell one of our biggest corporate users to stick with 1.2 because 2.0 is not good enough for them. To be fully comfortable with the proposal I's like to see a second  and third reference implmentation. I can say for LRC that our research platfom SOLAS will implmenet the module support if it makes into the spec. I know that Fredrik like the think and I believe that there should be interest at LIOX eventually other LSPs to consume the bin unit as produced by Sharepoint now and in the future. @Ryan, I believe that you should populate the wiki with the proposals as suggested by you on behalf of Microsoft in last few days. You see, the cut off meeting is close and there is probably not enough time for discussions before these are added. 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: david.filip@ul.ie On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Schnabel, Bryan S < bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com > wrote: Hi Ryan and Rodolfo, I tired to find the minutes around our binary discussion, but I didn't find that conversation. I recall the discussion went something like "since nobody uses it - it must not be worth supporting." From my point of view, we've now seen binary used in a very mainstream way. I think our previous discussion was that it would not be in core. But I see no reason why we shouldn't consider binary as a module. In fact I'd say that's exactly the kind of thing modules are for. I support this proposal. Thanks, Bryan ________________________________ From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [ xliff@lists.oasis-open.org ] on behalf of Rodolfo M. Raya [ rmraya@maxprograms.com ] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:35 AM To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] 2.0 Binary Data Module Proposal Hi Ryan, One of the things we dropped on purpose from XLIFF 2.0 was support for binary stuff. It was agreed that those that need to handle binary pieces can continue using XLIFF 1.2, as upgrading to 2.0 is not mandatory. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com


  • 4.  RE: [xliff] 2.0 Binary Data Module Proposal

    Posted 11-16-2012 21:40
    Thank you David, I couldn’t have written a better response in favor of a bin unit module J . I will populate the wiki with our proposals.   From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:31 PM To: Schnabel, Bryan S Cc: Rodolfo M. Raya; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [xliff] 2.0 Binary Data Module Proposal   Ryan, Bryan, Rodolfo, all   I support the bin unit module, as proposed. I agree that the Sharepoint team provided a valid use case. This even allows for cascaded use of XLIFF, whereas the content owner does not need to bother for complexities of low level extraction at their end. The module while elaborated upon could eventually consider providing some basic tooling for the cascaded handling..   The sole reason why bin unit was dropped was that it did not appear as used in any survey (MIcah Bly, SC surveys, Asanka's corpus - which is however not representative at this point.   I believe that the bin unit scenario will become fairly mainstream with SharePoint 2013. The average corporate portal user will not have access to good office filters to facilitate extraction, so that the office content will enter the LSP nicely packaged as bin unit..   Microsoft expressed support to the 2.0 migration in a very unambiguous way in Seattle, and I see Ryan's series of proposals as a necessary consequence of that statement.   We should not tell one of our biggest corporate users to stick with 1.2 because 2.0 is not good enough for them.   To be fully comfortable with the proposal I's like to see a second  and third reference implmentation. I can say for LRC that our research platfom SOLAS will implmenet the module support if it makes into the spec. I know that Fredrik like the think and I believe that there should be interest at LIOX eventually other LSPs to consume the bin unit as produced by Sharepoint now and in the future.   @Ryan, I believe that you should populate the wiki with the proposals as suggested by you on behalf of Microsoft in last few days. You see, the cut off meeting is close and there is probably not enough time for discussions before these are added.   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: david.filip@ul.ie On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Schnabel, Bryan S < bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com > wrote: Hi Ryan and Rodolfo, I tired to find the minutes around our binary discussion, but I didn't find that conversation. I recall the discussion went something like "since nobody uses it - it must not be worth supporting." From my point of view, we've now seen binary used in a very mainstream way. I think our previous discussion was that it would not be in core. But I see no reason why we shouldn't consider binary as a module. In fact I'd say that's exactly the kind of thing modules are for. I support this proposal. Thanks, Bryan ________________________________ From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [ xliff@lists.oasis-open.org ] on behalf of Rodolfo M. Raya [ rmraya@maxprograms.com ] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:35 AM To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] 2.0 Binary Data Module Proposal Hi Ryan, One of the things we dropped on purpose from XLIFF 2.0 was support for binary stuff. It was agreed that those that need to handle binary pieces can continue using XLIFF 1.2, as upgrading to 2.0 is not mandatory. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com