Re: Next last call publication & question on todays meeting

Yves, my response inline

Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>wrote:

> Hi David, all,
>
> > However, I do not agree that introducing extensibility and changing
> > schema is not a substantive change. Anyway, I would hardly call it
> editorial.
> > Extensibility in this sense has not been discussed before and we do not
> have
> > a stable spec change to reflect it by now.
> > My opinion is that it is better to lose one week now than many weeks
> later
> > on if the change is pushed into the second last call.
>
> I would disagree: There is no notion of "extensibility" in ITS. This is
> not XLIFF.
>
The extensibility now introcuced is exactly of the same type as in XLIFF
and as such dangerous, if processing requirements are not properly set.

Apart from saying that the extensions MAY be ignored. It should aslo say
that the extensions MUST not provide features provided by the ITS core
elements attributes. I understand that we can hardly build test cases for
this MUST, but it is important to stress.

>
> The schema change is also not a substantive change because it doesn’t
> modify in any way how ITS works.
>
It is a substantive change because the schema would invalidate the extended
stuff before.

>
> ITS is kind enough to allow other namespaces, the ITS processors can
> simply ignore them, and that’s the end of the story.
>
In order to make the schema changes, the spec must unequivocally say where
those extended elements and attributes are allowed. It is anarchy and not a
standard otherwise.

>
> cheers,
> -ys
>
>
>