RE: ITS Module namespace

I think Felix had a point here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Oct/0052.html Using “its” may be confusing to the end-users: the XLIFF module defines both more and less than the ITS namespace, so I can see that using “its” can confuse an average end-user.

Obviously prefixes are arbitrary, but consistency and conventions help a lot communication.

 

Personally I don’t care much what the ITS module’s URI and the default prefix are, as long as they are consistent and that we define them once for all very soon.

 

Cheers,

-yves

 

From: David Filip [mailto:davidf@davidf.org] 
Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2014 6:54 PM
To: Phil Ritchie
Cc: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org; Yves Savourel
Subject: RE: ITS Module namespace

 

I don't see a value in calling the namespace anything else than its. The OASIS namespace is clearly a different namespace than the w3c one and prefixes are anyway arbitrary.. 

dF is AFK, so please bear with the typos and call me at +353860222158 <tel:%2B353860222158>  if my answer seems insufficient..

+1 for "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:xits:2.1" and "xits"


-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com <mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com> ] 
Sent: 07 November 2014 13:10
To: 'public-i18n-its-ig'
Subject: ITS Module namespace

Hi all,

Currently the 2.1 draft uses "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1" for the ITS module URI and "its" for the recommended prefix. We discussed a different prefix to avoid confusion with the traditional "its" prefix.

Should we then use "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:xits:2.1" and "xits" in the specification?

Deciding soon will help avoid having to fix unit tests and examples later.

Thanks,
-yves



  _____  

VistaTEC Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483. 

Registered Office, VistaTEC House, 700, South Circular Road, Kilmainham. Dublin 8. Ireland. 

The information contained in this message, including any accompanying documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s). The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately.

  _____  

Received on Sunday, 9 November 2014 03:46:18 UTC