0

I'm investigating about XLIFF, and for a start, wanted to have some tests with HTML files. I found an XSL Transformation at OASIS, which produces XLIFF files from HTML files. But the resulting XLIFF files contains elements and attributes belonging to a tek name‑space, which OpenLanguageTools XLIFF Editor seems to not enjoy. I, myself, have issue trying to validate it against the xliff-core-1.2-strict.xsd schema.

I wonder what's that tek name‑space, whose identifier is http://www.tektronix.com/TC . I searched the web, but could found nothing relevant.

Is this a standard extension to XLIFF? Is this legacy or actual?

Update #1: What troubles me a lot, is that the URL seems not valid any‑more, and redirects to www.tek.com now, while there seems to be still many sample XLIFF documents holding elements from to that name‑space.

Shervin
  • 1,936
  • 17
  • 27
Hibou57
  • 6,870
  • 6
  • 52
  • 56

1 Answers1

1

tek stands for Tektronix indeed. Although you didn't provide the resulting Xliff, but I guess the reason that you're not able to validate it against the Xliff core schema is that your document has two namespaces; the original Xliff namespace and a custom namespace called tek which is used to add customized vocabulary to the file.

Here is a foo example:

<xliff xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:1.2" 
       xmlns:foo="http://www.foobar.com"
       xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" 
       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:1.2         
       xliff-core-1.2-strict.xsd http://www.foobar.com foo.xsd" 
       version="1.2">

Then you can have:

   <trans-unit id="0" restype="button" resname="big_red_button">
       <foo:serious-note>Srsly!</foo:serious-note>
       <source xml:lang="en-US">Don't push here!</source>
       <target state="needs-translation></target>
   </trans-unit>

And as long as you add this customized tag to your schema, you can validate the file using both Xliff schema and your customized schema:

<xsd:element name="serious-note">
    <xsd:complexType>
        <xsd:simpleContent>
            <xsd:extension base="xsd:string">
                <xsd:attribute ref="xml:lang" use="optional"/>
                <xsd:attribute name="foobar" type="xsd:string" use="optional"/>
            </xsd:extension>
        </xsd:simpleContent>
    </xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
Shervin
  • 1,936
  • 17
  • 27
  • Do you know why I've seen this particular extension name‑space so much often? Was a kind of de‑facto standard? What's its current status? Should I care or should I study XLIFF without taking care of this foreign extension? – Hibou57 Apr 17 '13 at 21:55
  • 1
    I guess folks at Tektronix had a big role in OASIS so lots of examples probably came from them and therefore use that namespace. Actually as shown above, it's just a customization. I've seen other companies do the same to add their own customized tags to Xliff and prevent mixing of customized vocabulary with standard Xliff vocabulary. – Shervin Apr 17 '13 at 23:37
  • “I guess folks at Tektronix had a big role in OASIS”; OK, now I understand. – Hibou57 Apr 18 '13 at 01:15