Re: Issue-55 - XLIFF mapping -

Yves, I agree the UL hosting of the namespace is of course just a stop
gap measure.
We are happy and ready to hand over to W3C at any moment.
@Felix, did you look into W3C hosting of the namespace? Did I miss it?

Discussing it with Dave et al., we figured that other mappings might
be in need of similar extensions, Dave has some RDF related examples
on the wiki.
So the idea is to have itsx: and call it "ITS Extensions" and use it
for any extensions that are required for mapping into different
Sean will circulate the URL and the initial xsd that we are going to
use in Rome. The xsd will be placed onto GitHub, so that others can
contribute to it until the namespace is taken over by W3C, and managed
via a W3C process.


Dr. David Filip
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Yves Savourel <> wrote:
> Hi Dave, David, all,
> Last conference call I think David noted that UL was ready to host a namespace URI for the extra namespace we need for the extra attributes needed to cover the lack of direct mapping (the itsx namespace described at
> I think the real namespace should be hosted by either the W3C or by OASIS and it needs to be set up soon. We don't want to start generating XLIFF documents for production with a temporary namespace.
> cheers,
> -yves

Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 13:38:50 UTC