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

I guess I’m just thinking about consistency in extending modules and wondering how important the TC thinks it is. I personally prefer consistency. As it is today, <gls:glossary> is not extensible at all, <mda:matches>
 can be extended using xml namespaces and <mda:metadata>, and all other modules I believe are extensible by xml namespaces only. Should we have a consistent extension story for modules or should we really leave it up to the module owners to define?

 

Ryan 

 

From: Yves Savourel [mailto:]

Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:18 AM

To: Ryan King; 

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

 

Sorry I misread you initial comment.

 

I guess, yes, the people defining the different modules should think about extensibility in general.

 

 

From: Ryan King [mailto:]

Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:25 AM

To: Yves Savourel; 

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

 

Thanks Yves, I agree on adding extension points to <segment>/<ignorable>. Maybe I misunderstood your reply on <mda:metadata>, but <mda:metadata> did make it to <mtc:matches> just not any other module and I was
 wondering if it should?

 

From: Yves Savourel [mailto:]

Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:37 AM

To: 

Subject: 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