Hi all,

I was looking at the minutes from last XLIFF TC meeting [1] and the latest TMX
2.0 draft [2]. It seems there is a great opportunity for both TMX and XLIFF to harmonize their content markup (the bpt, ph, g, etc.
part of each formats). I really hope this will result in a *single vocabulary* shared by both formats.

The content of <source>/target> and <seg> has no reason (that I can think of) to
be marked up differently: it is the same thing. A unique vocabulary would also allow utilization in other XML formats and increase
interoperability.

I see that the TMX 2.0 specifications seem to be almost final, while XLIFF 2.0
is still far off. I also noticed some aspects that should likely be in a shared markup that seem to be absent in the TMX 2.0 draft,
such as flags indicating whether a code can be duplicated or not, or if it can be deleted or not.

I would hope things will be discussed and synchronized to allow for a thorough
design of the content markup and a real shared namespace (not just the same tag names). From a technical viewpoint I can't
think of any reasons to rush in publishing TMX 2.0. But I can see many reasons to harmonize it with XLIFF 2.0.

Cheers, -yves

[1]: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200812/msg00003.html

[2]: http://www.lisa.org/fileadmin/standards/tmx2/tmx.html

-- This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC.

In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required before posting.

Subscribe: xlif...@lists.oasis-open.org Unsubscribe: xlif...@lists.oasis-open.org List help: xlif...@lists.oasis-open.org List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/ Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php Committee: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xliff