Hi folks, On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Peter Reynolds wrote: > I share your frustration with people describing the current spec as > unworkable. We are also working with XLIFF and doing fine on the current > spec. Considerable work went into achieving the 1.0 spec and I don't think > it is helpful for that to be dismissed. No one has dismissed the work that has been done up to date. I can only speak for myself on this subject, but if I thought the current document was worthless, I wouldn't have bothered to get involved. I've heard from several people that they have working implementations of the current specification. I think that's a terrific indicator that things are going well. However, I have >not< heard from anyone who has successfully done work using their tools in combination with those produced by someone else in the group without access to information beyond the contents of the shared spec. The abstract of the spec is very clear on this point: The purpose of this format is to store localisable data and carry it from one step of the localisation process to the other, while allowing interoperability between tools. Has someone achieved that interoperability between tools ? That's what I want to see happen, because it has much more value than yet another format that only works with tools from this-or-that vendor. Eric