- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:53:41 -0600
- To: "'Dr. David Filip'" <David.Filip@ul.ie>, "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
- CC: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
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 schema change is also not a substantive change because it doesn’t modify in any way how ITS works. ITS is kind enough to allow other namespaces, the ITS processors can simply ignore them, and that’s the end of the story. cheers, -ys
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:54:13 UTC