RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Comments - 2.7.1 Extension Points

From
Yves Savourel <>
Date
2013-05-29T10:37:03+00:00
ID
007601ce5c58$74337590$5c9a60b0$@com
Thread
RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Comments - 2.7.1 Extension Points
+1 on extension point in <segment>/<ignorable>.

At some point I thought we said extension points would be allowed at least anywhere <mda:metadata> is allowed.

 

For <mda:metadata> in <mtc:matches>: mtc was define a long time before mda. That’s probably why mda never made it there.

 

-ys

 

From: Ryan King [mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:52 AM
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Comments - 2.7.1 Extension Points

 

Is there a concrete reason why <file>, <group>, and <unit> can contain element-based extensions, but <segment> and <ignorable> can’t, especially when those elements already contain modules? Not allowing extensions here means that no one could create an extension that could potentially become another module at <segment> or <ignorable> level like those already defined. 

 

Additionally, is there a concrete reason why <mda:metadata> is allowed only in <mtc:matches> and no other modules in the spec? (BTW, there’s a typo in the list, it currently says <mtc:match> and not <mtc:matches).

 

Thanks,

Ryan