XLIFF Skeleton (was Re: [xliff-tools] PO Representation Guide: The PO Header)

[Asgeir Frimannsson]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:19, Rodolfo M. Raya wrote:
> Here are a few comments about the PO Representation Guide:
>
> 1.1. General Structure
>
>
>         The last paragraph states that the guide does not define how to
>         structure skeletons. I believe that it is important to define a
>         common format for the skeleton as there will be different
>         implementations of the PO filters. The guide is intended as a
>         standard, so it should rule all aspects related to XLIFF <-> PO
>         conversion.

A common format for the skeleton would be the ideal solution, as it would 
encourage not only tool interoperability, but filter interoperability. But I 
have a few concerns:

1) Can a Representation Guide specify the skeleton format? I'm not sure if the 
following assumption is correct: "The guide does not enforce that the a file 
converted to XLIFF by vendor A's filter can be back-converted to its original 
format by vendor B's filter. The guide does however enforce that the general 
XLIFF structure of these files are the same (that is, the same mapping of 
basic elements and attributes, e.g. the same hierarcical structure of <group> 
and <trans-unit> elements). This will ensure interoperability on the XLIFF 
editor level, but not on the filter level. This means that the guide e.g. 
can't specify how skeletons are structured or how to arrange 'id' 
attributes."

I'll try to find out about this from someone in the XLIFF TC.

2) Some vendors (or projects) use skeleton-standards across a range of 
filters, and even use the same back-converter for different formats. Defining 
a standard for a PO skeleton would mean breaking this cross-filter 
'compatibility'.

cheers,
asgeir