Meeting minutes

Hello,

Please find below a summary of today’s discussion:

Attendance: Bryan, Rodolfo, Yoshito, Lucía (arrived 20m late).

I. Administration
B: I move to approve 18 May meeting minutes. https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202105/msg00011.html

R: I second.

B: Meeting minutes approved.

B. OASIS web site updates - Rodolfo https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xliff

-Roster update. Yoshito

Y: I contacted IBM.

R: AI for Bryan to contact Chet to know how to proceed with non-active members and contact members directly and R. too.

II. Technical work

R: No news on the Migration guide (A) or validation tool (B). As Davidf is not present, we do not have news on items C or D.

A. Migration guide. Rodolfo.

B. Online Validation Tool. Feedback, next steps. https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202101/msg00002.html

C. Test suite correction. Schematron (update?). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uaQ1oSqhXRkRKXNLvgIwcffvNzhcTj9dIkIN__7EH4o/edit

D. MessageFormat (XLIFF 2 module). https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D702OBAzT-Crb9XXUiZYJnFO9Yq5duRy4Zc3Br6JwRU/edit David F.

E. Validation questions (L:Can we close these items?):

R: Yes, we can close these items.

1.Question about validation of an untranslated segment. https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202104/msg00020.html

2. Pointing to notes outside current unit. https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202104/msg00021.html

3. Pairing isolated <ec> with <sc>. https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202104/msg00022.html

F. Online technical discussions (L:Can we close these items?):

R: Yes, we can close these items.

-ref value in translation candidates module element <mtc:match>. Yoshito. https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202104/msg00002.html

-XLIFF 2.0 + ICU messages in Angular. Rodolfo. https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202104/msg00010.html

III. New business

R: We were talking before Lucia arrived, about the idea of providing a simpler version of XLIFF by clearly separating core and modules. Having the modules in the same spec introduces a lot of complexity and it can be intimidating for implementers. We are not proposing to break anything, we would like just to separate the two concepts so we can provide the core in a simpler way and facilitate its implementation. Modules will still be published separately, and those who want the complex want, they can keep it.

Y: This is also helping us to communicate with language vendors. If it is supported, like basic, this will be easier to communicate.

R: There are many modules, but I use only two. I work with core, matches and glossary. I think it might help adoption.

Y: It is interesting to me. We also support matches.

R: That could be a simple thing. It could simplify a lot. In the current spec, each attribute is one file. In glossary module, for example, you have one file per attribute of that module. Editing it would be a nightmare. Everything is complex; it would be good if we can have a simpler version

B: I agree with R.

R: Lucía, what do you think?

L: Is this similar to what it was done with TBX?

R: No, it is different. It works on a different way.

R: If you look at the files at VS, Ms does not use the modules. ITS module is not widely used. We have the track changes modules that is on hold. If we separate core and modules, we can produce a simpler spec for core. Just separate the spec, the core on one side and modules on the other, not killing what we have. It is just an idea, it is worth exploring.

L: I agree with you.

B: How do we proceed with this?

R: We have not started including changes on the spec. We are still on time on adopting that idea, it would be a great effort but something that we can handle. It is a possibility.

Y: I also agree, it is a good way to go.

R: We are not proposing to break what we have. We can discuss it with Davidf before the next meeting and if he agrees, as we all agree now, we can start working on this in the next meeting.

Summer availability. Lucía sent a doodle.

R: We could skip the first meeting of July.

L: Yes, that one is just informative, so we can keep the second Tuesday. I can prepare the agenda for the second Tuesday of July even if I will not be able to attend.

L: Meeting adjourned.

xliff message