Thanks for the reminder Felix.
Like Phil, I’m just wondering about the cost of JSON-LD when various namespaces are mixed in the same object.
Looking at examples such as those here: https://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api-best-practices/#dfn-json-ld-context, the resolution of the namespaces seems relatively complicated and changes the object structure. But I’m probably missing a lot.
Cheers,
-yves
Yves Savourel
Localization Solutions Architect | t: 303.951.4523 | f: 303.516.1701 | ENLASO®
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:55 AM
To: Yves Savourel <>
Cc: XLIFF OMOS TC <>
Subject: Re: [xliff-omos] Modules and extensions
Hi Yves, all,
previously in this thread people said they are worried about ad hoc created namespace resolution systems. I understand the worry about json-ld complexity, but at least it is a standard solution, with many libraries available. Just my two cent ...
(I understand that it is likely that people won't go the json-ld path, this is just my last attempt to mention this approach)
- Felix
2017-05-25 4:28 GMT+02:00 Yves Savourel <>:
Hi Robert, all,
Ø I’m inclined to stick to _ to separate prefix from name, assuming _ are forbidden in prefixes and names by self-imposed JLIFF conventions. Underscore is at least widely supported in variable names.
A ‘_’ would be fine with me.
I was just under the impression ‘$’ was the preference for you (and maybe others).
I just wanted to be sure it would work with _javascript_.
Ø Other programming languages may not accept $ in hard-coded property/variable names…
Quite right. But I wonder if it matters: Languages other than _javascript_ are likely to go through some kind of marshalling of the JSON data into their own data structures and have ways to address such issue. Actually _javascript_ is probably a special case: the more I work on JLIFF, the more I think it’d be quite hard for most languages to just rely on default automated mapping mechanism to get the proper input/output. But hopefully I’m wrong.
Cheers,
-yves
From: Robert van Engelen [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 11:11 AM
To: Yves Savourel <>
Cc: XLIFF OMOS TC <>
Subject: Re: [xliff-omos] Modules and extensions
I’m inclined to stick to _ to separate prefix from name, assuming _ are forbidden in prefixes and names by self-imposed JLIFF conventions. Underscore is at least widely supported in variable names.
Other programming languages may not accept $ in hard-coded property/variable names (i.e. console.log(x.name.b) is "hard-coded" and so is console.log(x[“name.b”]) also hard-coded, but with a period in the property name that requires quotes).
- Robert
Dr. Robert van Engelen, CEO/CTO Genivia Inc.
voice: (850) 270 6179 ext 104
fax: (850) 270 6179
mobile: (850) 264 2676
On May 23, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Yves Savourel <> wrote:
Regarding separator, from quick tests:
Dollar-sign would work, but not period, IMO:
var x = {"name$b": "text"};
console.log(x.name$b); à ok
var x = {"name.b": "text"};
console.log(x.name.b); à error
More tests are probably needed.
cheers,
-yves
