Our source hierarchy
We prefer the organization that publishes or maintains a reference: ISO for an ISO edition, OASIS for XLIFF specifications, Unicode for its technical material, and the responsible framework organization for its own guidance.
Historical first-party documents remain useful when their date and context are explicit. We do not use an archived page's present-tense wording as evidence that its organization is still operating. A maintained website may also contain older sections, so apparent recency is not enough.
Research papers can support statements about a method or experiment. They are not automatically evidence of a published standard, universal performance or production readiness.
What a source check means
Each reference guide records the date on which its public source information was checked. Where only metadata, a public abstract or a preview was available, the guide says so.
A source check does not mean that the full paid standard was obtained, every normative clause was reviewed, or implementation conformity was established.
Our articles use these distinctions:
- Published standard: a document carrying that status from its publisher.
- Specification: a technical document with its own stated approval level.
- Framework: a structured approach that may support several configurations.
- Draft: work in progress, kept separate from an applicable published edition.
- Historical reference: preserved material whose availability does not imply active maintenance.
Original explanation and examples
An illustrative scenario on this site is our own teaching material unless expressly attributed otherwise. It is not an official test case, mandated checklist or approved implementation procedure.
We separate what the source establishes from what we recommend. A practical recommendation may help a reader plan questions or tests, but it does not add a requirement to the referenced standard.
We avoid unsupported claims of adoption, market dominance or certification. A vendor's statement of support is evidence about its claim, not proof that every possible file or workflow is supported.
Conflicting information
When sources disagree, we identify the conflict rather than choosing the more convenient account. One example is the public mapping of ISO 21720:2024 to an XLIFF version, discussed in the XLIFF guide.
If the available evidence does not settle a detail, we qualify or omit it. We may need an authorized full document or a publisher clarification before making a stronger statement.
AI-assisted preparation
AI can support drafting, comparison and translation. It cannot establish that a source exists, a claim is true or a technical example is conformant. Those questions require evidence and appropriate checks.
Our editorial workflow is to identify the reference, examine its publicly available status and scope, write an original explanation, label illustrative advice and check the resulting links and metadata. Future expert review should be recorded separately from these checks.
We do not treat a generated quality score as certification. When discussing an AI evaluation method, we distinguish its test conditions, configuration and limitations from the authority of a standard.
English sources and translated editions
English is the source language for this collection.
Document identifiers and status distinctions should remain consistent across languages. A correction to the English source should trigger a review of its translations. A translation that has not yet received a source update should be labelled accordingly rather than shown as current without qualification.
Updating the collection
Editorial spelling fixes need not be presented as a new standard edition.
The site should record a source-status change when it is checked, not promise that every publisher change is detected immediately. No automatic monitoring service is claimed by this policy.
Rights, affiliation and corrections
We link to official texts instead of republishing paid standards. Permissions for a historical specification do not automatically cover a later edition, logo or trademark. Readers and implementers should check the terms applicable to the material they use.
Where this collection adapts MQM Council material, the relevant article credits the Council, identifies the explanatory changes and links to CC BY 4.0. These attributed contributions retain their applicable licence; a future site-wide reuse policy must not remove those permissions. See the MQM licensing notice.
Association LISA is an independent educational project. Mentioning LISA, ISO, ASTM, OASIS, W3C, Unicode, SAE, TAUS or MQM does not imply authorization or endorsement.
To report an error, email info@associationlisa.com with the article, passage and supporting source. See Contact for the suggested format.