Many feature requests are fairly handwavy towards implementations in translation tools.
I've already voiced my concerns about this numerous times and I think it would be helpful for everyone involved to further define the goal of this specification.
I always interpreted the goal as having interoperability between translation tools even when these are tools for different platforms.
That means that this specification must define exactly how translation tools must interpret values and that it must not include features that are impossible to implement for all translation tools. It should also aim to limit user defined constructs and try to have as much in pre-defined sets/enums.
Alternatively it could be interpreted as a specification purely for reading a json file.
This leaves more freedom for translation tools to differentiate, but it also means that tools will most likely not have interoperability.
Firstly I would like to know the position of the specification editors towards this interpretation.
Many feature requests are fairly handwavy towards implementations in translation tools.
I've already voiced my concerns about this numerous times and I think it would be helpful for everyone involved to further define the goal of this specification.
I always interpreted the goal as having interoperability between translation tools even when these are tools for different platforms.
That means that this specification must define exactly how translation tools must interpret values and that it must not include features that are impossible to implement for all translation tools. It should also aim to limit user defined constructs and try to have as much in pre-defined sets/enums.
Alternatively it could be interpreted as a specification purely for reading a json file.
This leaves more freedom for translation tools to differentiate, but it also means that tools will most likely not have interoperability.
Firstly I would like to know the position of the specification editors towards this interpretation.