Hi All, xLiff is young at this stage and perhaps the interoperability Eric asked about has not yet been proven; many tools have not had time to endorse it fully. However, the use of TMX between tools is a good example of the interoperability that can be achieved with xLiff as it is. TMX, which has many of the same interoperability limitations we are discussing wrt xLiff 1.0, has been used to great effect between tools. There are many examples where localisation data has been transferred between tools. The stronger commercially available localisation tools now support TMX. While that support is to differing levels, it proves that the tools can work with the flexibility that has been built into TMX and the current xLiff spec. Regarding interoperability, there are certain key pieces of data such as source and target text, parts of speech, translator notes, etc that are critical to all stages of the localisation process and need to be fully understandable by all consumers of xliff. There is other data that is completely specific to the author of the xliff file and is irrelevant to other users. Examples might be database unique keys from where the text came, or specific workflow paths within an organisation. These do not need to be understood by everyone, yet absolutely need to be catered for in this format. I don't believe that a flexible attribute such as 'ts', which xliff uses for this type of information, prevents interoperability. This may not be the best way of providing flexibility, but we need to understand that if this format is supposed to span the entire localisation process for any organisation, we need to provide a mechanism that allows users include proprietory information that is simply maintained by consuming applications that do not understand it. I am very much in favour of interoperability and tightly specifying as much as possible in xLiff 1.1, but I feel some flexibiltiy would promote the format greater adoption in the industry. Regards, Enda