 Regular SC meeting (1st Tues) (Conference Call) |
|
| Name | Regular SC meeting (1st Tues) (Conference Call) |
| Time | Tuesday, 06 March 2012, 05:00pm to 06:00pm WET
(Tuesday, 06 March 2012, 05:00pm to 06:00pm UTC) |
| Description | 1. Please join my meeting, "every 1st Tuesday in month, starting from September 6 at 17:00 GMT". https://www3.gotomeeting.com/join/421352758 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Germany: +49 (0) 898 7806 6464 Ireland: +353 (0) 14 845 983 United States: +1 (909) 259-0010 Access Code: 421-352-758 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting Password: 54321 Meeting ID: 421-352-758 GoToMeeting® Online Meetings Made Easy™ [time chosen based on kick off discussion] |
| Minutes | XLIFF SC Meeting 06/03/2012 === 1/ Roll call
Present: David, Arle, Bryan, Lucía, Asanka, Yves.
Regrets: Joachim
Agenda
David: Apologies for taking so much time in the TC.
Bryan: No need to apologize. Agenda items sometimes take time.
David: I am not very happy with the outcome of the previous meeting.
Bryan: I am happy you had put that topic [calendar driven deadline for 2.0] again on the table. I think we all agree the time for action is now and a calendar driven may help to accelerate the process.
1. SotA questionnaire for TC review
David: Change the time of the questionnaire. 7 days instead of 5. There was a good comment by Yves that will be introduced before sending it tonight.
Does anyone have any more comments on that before we send it tonight?
2. Continue discussion on Profiling
David: This point can be considered now to be moved into the main TC. And I will move it to the main TC and drive the discussion there. Any further comments on this?
Bryan: I don’t have comments on that. But I will echo what you say of asking everybody to participate on that discussion, not only sc members.
David: Agree. I have meant all members.
Arle: Maybe it would help if we simply proposed a definition so the voting is on something concrete.
David: My first idea was that we did some work in the sc and then present it to the main TC. But as we did not have the mandate to do it, I decided to present it in the main TC.
Arle: That's OK, but if we give a starting point it would give them something to respond to. Even if there is no mandate, there is nothing to stop a group of us from simply making a proposal for discussion (even if not the SC).
3. Update on 3rd XLIFF Symposium
David: I wanted to follow up, with the organisers. My proposal to present XLIFF 2.0 update in Paris was rejected. I took action, I contacted Daniel Goldschmidt, as he had been in favour of reporting on standards. I sent a proposal for a Federated event of MultilingualWeb(-LT) and XLIFF Symposium for the Seattle Localization World, and I am waiting for his answer. If do not hear fromhim, I would pass the proposal to Ulrich and Donna.
Bryan: I think the proposal for Seattle will not be decided before June.
Arle: They rejected ~75% of all proposals for LocWorld Paris.
David: I am not proposing a talk, I am proposing a collocation with an event. The good news is the CNGL will have some funding for the federated event. So we will have some funding to do it, even in case we could not collocate it with LocWorld. Arle, could you help on this?
Arle: Yes; I don’t see why I couldn’t.
David: Arle, do you agree that is a good idea to recruit Daniel first as champion to help us with this?
Arle: I think so. We will run into some opposition because the standards session in Santa Clara got fairly low audience marks, as I understand.
David: Any proposals to this topic?
Arle: Seattle would be good for me. I think we could make a case now for a standards-related track in Seattle. We (XLIFF TC) can then propose a collocation as well.
It could be a selling point. They are profit-driven.
David: I am very surprised that they are not doing it for Paris. Maybe standards are not a hot topic any more.
Bryan: the way we should sell it: is the momentum we are having; I mean all the new people who are joining and contributing now.
Arle: We can make the case if we point to attendees from the previous symposia.
David: I might ask Arle and Bryan for your help in communications.
4. Do we need to work more on the calendar driven approach?
David: Bryan, do you we need to work more on the calendar driven approach? I will try to drive it now in the main TC.
Bryan: I will just reinforce the idea that the new members and the new environment may lead to this change of strategy.
David: Good point. I know some of the new members share that idea. Maybe they think that non-voting members have not the right to speak up.
Bryan: I will say it in the next meeting.
MultilingualWeb-LT liaison
David: I am surprised seeing the opposition in the main TC.
Bryan: You need to explain it on mailing list. After covered on mailing list, no one can attack it for lack of information.
David: True, still I was reporting on the group since November last year, it is all minuted. Anyway, I will open it again on the TC mailing list…
Other business:
Bryan: Me and other members discussed offline creating a tool to transform xliff 1.2 into 2.0. I can easily do that in XSLT, the problem will be framing it and publish it. How do we solve this? and how do we start working on this without interrupting the good momentum in the XLIFF TC?
David: It is a kind of promotion issue, so it can be understood as our scope. But I can see people attacking us for it not being in our scope, so I would propose it as a feature “conversion tool” in the wiki.
Bryan: the reason why I am thinking about it is because we are talking about changing names from the previous spec. The risk of this approach is that we will alienate XLIFF 1.2 users.
David: I think we need to clarify something. I think the elements we are proposing are at the moment "working names".
Yves: Yes, they are now only working names, but most of them look like they could not be renamed to the old names… You have to have in mind that they are different concepts. It would be misleading to keep the same names. “Alt-trans” is totally different from last version.
David: So if we are looking at different things, my question is if the filter would be really viable.
Bryan: changing names is not difficult thing to implement in the tool.
Yves: XLIFF 2.0 is not backwards compatible to 1.2.
Bryan: I was talking about 1.2 to 2.0 converter.
Yves: If all features worked under 1.2 why have 2.0? Breaking of backwards compatibility would not be really warranted. I do not see clearly the point.
Bryan: I see.. Still some sort of conversion of old format could be helpul..
Yves: To me XLIFF is a temporary format. It is not a storage format.
Bryan: Agree. In my case, we use it that way. But I think in the wiki there is a proposal to use it as storage.
David: I´ve seen XLIFF files wrapped in another xliff layer, crazy things...
Arle: Yes, many companies do things the easy way because it works but they aren't thinking ahead.
End of the meeting
|
| Agenda | [will largely depend on TC outcomes] 1. SotA questionnaire for TC review 5 BD review and 5BD ballot (SC or TC) 2. Continue discussion on Profiling Proposed principles: 1) No core functions in extensions or modules 2) No core subsetting. - Irrelevant items must be at least preserved - must read/write everything relevant for its specialization in core 3. Update on 3rd XLIFF Symposium 4. Do we need to work more on the calendar driven approach? AOB
|
| Submitter | Dr. David Filip |
| Group | XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC |
| Access | This event is visible to XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC and shared with
|
| Referenced Items | |||
| Name | Type | Date | Action |