> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf
> Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 1:26 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [xliff] Thoughts on custom namespaces for extensions
Hi,
> If extensions are only used to implement features not defined by XLIFF they
> are no more of a threat to interoperability than modules.
Extensions are a threat, as they are not documented and require reverse engineering to achieve minimal interoperability. We can see today the interoperability disaster generated by extensions.
> So there are two questions:
>
> 1) Should we allow extensions in XLIFF 2.0?
I would say no. Users also said no in the first symposium.
> 2) If the answer to 1) is yes, then should we use <metadata> or custom
> namespaces to implement extensions?
If the TC agrees on allowing extensions, I prefer <metadata> or any element set defined by the TC.
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
