< Return to Calendar

* XLIFF TC Call (Conference Call)
Name * XLIFF TC Call (Conference Call)
Time Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 11:00am to 12:00pm EDT
(Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 03:00pm to 04:00pm UTC)
Description

https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/905529225

Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.

   France: +33 (0) 182 880 780

   Germany: +49 (0) 892 2061 159

   Spain: +34 911 23 0850

   Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 612

   United Kingdom: +44 (0) 203 535 0611

   United States: +1 (773) 945-1031

Access Code: 905-529-225

Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

Meeting ID: 905-529-225

Minutes

DavidF:

- Attendance: H, S, T, DF, L, K, Y, B, J, U, DW, A

- Don't see Fredrick; 12 voters; we have quorum.

Bryan:

-  Meeting minutes:https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201310/msg00003.html seconded by  Tom & Yves.  No objections;

- We have just concluded the 2nd public review; concluded on the 15th of October; a very active public review with very constructive comments.

- Public review comments tracker URL: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker

- We consider comments of the public review 1 to be frozen; the comments for the public review 2 are active but we are not accepting any new comments;

DavidF:

- I added a comment today, it came from the admins in Sep; those are really minor issues; I added them as 146.

Bryan:

- It was listed as 24 September.

- We will need to triage each of these comments; comments 100-111 have been already triaged in the 1st meeting in September;

DavidF:

- I did some filtering on the items; I have made a few groups of “editorial” and “minor fixes” that I believe we could approve in one go. I think these can be summery approved.

* Minor editorial changes - owned by David: 102, 110, 116, 124,  128, 133, 135, 136, 146

* Typos - owned by Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125

* Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145

* Example fix - owned by Bryan: 134

Yves:

- What do you mean by approved? Did you make the changes?

DavidF:

- I called them editorial changes that can be fixed as suggested.

Bryan:

- What are you asking us to approve?

DavidF:

- I am proposing to approve the (above listed) comments to be fixed as suggested;

Bryan:

-You are proposing that we accept those proposed solutions by the commenters, as approved by the TC. I will second that.

- Tom may need to leave early; will it affect the quorum?

DavidF:

- No

DavidF:

- Proposal: I move to approve the above comments as editorial changes, to be fixed as suggested by the commenters.

Bryan:

- Seconds the proposal.

Yves:

- Some of those comments have no suggestion; for example 102, there is no wording corresponding to any suggestion.

DavidF:

- Yes. There is no wording, it is just a clarification.

Yves:

- I've seen clarifications leading to problems. I'd like to see the actual wordings.

DavidF:

- Let's take out 102 then.

Bryan:

- Are there any others that belong to the same category?

Yves:

- I don't know. I didn't get a chance to have a look;

Bryan:

- Shall we quickly go through each of these?

DavidF:

- I wouldn't go through the Typos

Bryan:

- I agree.

DavidF:

- 134 is an example fix;

Bryan:

- I agree; we would change the <x> to <ph> and we would make sure that the <ph> has the required id attribute.

DavidF:

- Next is 110: xml:space; I am happy to fix it as suggested.

Yves:

- There is no specific suggestion;

DavidF:

- What it basically says is that it should have the link, and the link is a normative link...

Yves:

- It should say white space should be spelled consistently; we have no corresponding change to it; how are you going to spell it? I know it is not important but... list of changes along with the resolution so people could look at that and approve.

Bryan:

- Let's take out 110 then;

DavidF:

- 116 is about undefined values in metadata; cannot be formatted as code because it is not a value;

Bryan:

- The proposal is to use unformatted text, clear to me

DavidF:

- 124: Alphabetical order; clear enough

Bryan:

- Clear to me

DavidF:

- 128: There is a missing element that accepts extended attributes, an error correction

Bryan:

- I agree, clear to me

DavidF:

- 133: Naming issues, alphabetical issues and formatting issues

Bryan:

- We have a convention that says when we have concatenated words; we make the first word lower case and upper case the second word; 

DavidF:

- 135: No suggestions, it's a clarification; this should be taken out;

- 136: error correction, notes missing in the list of extendable elements that seems to be clear;

- 146: I fixed that already in the new working draft;

- The new group for the summery approval:

* Editorial, fix as suggested

DavidF:  116, 124, 128, 133, 136, 146

* Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125

* Bryan: 134 example fix

 

Bryan:

- I second this new list.

 

DavidF:

- I am going to take the votes;

 

yes= approve the proposed solutions

no= do not approve the proposed solutions

abstain = abstain from voting

 

Helena = yes, Shirly = Yes, Tom = Yes, DavidF=Yes, Kevin = Yes, Yves= Abstain, Bryan = Yes, Joachim=Yes, Uwe=Yes, DavidW=Yes, Asanka=Yes

11 yes, 1 abstain

 

Bryan:

- Aside from the non-controversial ones, several of these will require more work; I propose the remaining five minutes to take a look at the owners for each of the comments; some of the comments were not clear to me, about the ownership; I used “tbd” to denote them; we have 12 tbds on the list; people who received assignment from me, are there any objections for having your name as the owner?

DavidF:

- I am fine with my assignments.

 

Bryan:

- are you ok with your assignments Tom?

 

Tom:

- ok.

 

Bryan:

- I am ok with my assignments, Frederick isn't here. I will ask Frederick, Ryan isn't here either, I will also email him;

- Comment # 118: no link between type and subtype for inline code; this is something that should be owned by Tom.

 

DavidF:

- there are two parts to it, one that - we aim to  have the type and subtype – sub-property types with processing requirements or constraints; that basically subtype must not exist without the type; that is fair to require; you must update the subtype if you updated the type. I believe this should be a part of the fix; this is not proposed by the commenter; Yves, would you agree with also linking them with constrains and processing requirements?

 

Yves:

- Don't we already have that?

 

David:

- Not sure;

 

Yves:

- There is already that.

 

DavidF:

- Sorry for my confusion, if this in place, this is a simple fix. I agree with the proposed solution and I can take it;

 

Bryan:

- DavidF takes the ownership of 118.

- 119 is definitions and spelling of quote type ; type value for quote is defined as ... we have no owner for this item, it seems pretty clear and non-controversial, I will take the ownership;

Yves:

-What's the definition of quote exactly? We are just looking at the ownership;

 

Bryan:

- I will take ownership of 119;

- 123 was withdrawn by Yves;

- Next to be determined is xml:lang and xml:space comment #127: .... so who'd like to take the ownership of this item? I understand this one relatively well; I will take the ownership of this one.

- Next comment: #130: about translation annotation, candidate annotation;

 

DavidF:

- I am happy to take the ownership of 130;

 

Bryan:

- How about 131; sections in the specification;

 

David:

- We probably could do it now; it is worth discussing now - it is a very big reshuffle if we went for it; I don't think we are unhappy with the appendixes; 

 

Bryan:

- Are you proposing that we solve this right now?

 

DavidF:

- I prefer to stay with the structure as is; If the TC thinks ... i am for the second proposal;

 

Bryan:

- I support Yves’ proposal. That we move the .. into the numbered portion of the specification;

 

DavidF:

-  I'd probably make a ballot now.

- Options: a) keep as it is, b) use sections, c) use sub-sections

 

Bryan:

- Any discussions needed before the ballot? I second.

 

DavidF:

- H: 3 S:(offline) T: 2 df: 1 L: abs Y: 3 K: 3 B: 3 J: 3 U : 3 DW: 3 A: 3

-  3 is the clear winner; 8 votes for 3; this is resolved. I can own the implementation;

 

Bryan:

- We have 8 mins left. Updates on the promotion liaison subcommittee meeting?

 

DavidF:

- People who want to stay for the P&L SC can stay for the call; it will be about the status of the state of the art report;

 

Bryan:

- I propose that we make changes to the remaining agenda items as follows;

- Request for new business for next time; then work on couple of more tbds

- Is there any new business proposed for the agenda next time? No new business.

 

DavidF:

- Before we jump to the tbds, we need to discuss comment #112 schema issues - I am not sure whether this is already resolved as Tom already committed the new schemas;

 

Tom:

- I believe everything has been completed and committed;

 

DavidF:

- Yves, are you happy with the changes that Tom made?

 

Yves:

- Yes. It's working now;

 

Bryan:

- I propose we go ahead and close this; this could be re-opened as a placeholder for further testing when making new fixes;

 

DavidF:

- It is good to have opened it for others;

- It was not a formal approval, but no dissents reported.

 

Bryan:

- Good work on making those fixes.

 

Tom:

- Apologies, for the necessity of the fixes;

 

Bryan:

- The schemas are in much better shape;

- Are there any tbds that needs to be further discussed?

- Remaining tbds: 132, 137, 138,140, 141, 143,144

 

DavidF:

- 132 should be owned by you;

 

Byran :

- Agreed. 132 will be owned by me.

 

DavidF:

- It is better to assign all of them now.

 

Bryan:

- 137: Yves and I have debated this on the mailing list - we just drop the note ; xliff is an exchange format not a processing format, this was unfriendly for some tools; or else we can make a decision to drop this note; are there any other thoughts?

 

DavidF:

- The note is very important; I wouldn't drop it; it is just a note; many times people have suggested with changes to the specification for xliff to be processing friendly; the note clarifies that xliff is an interchange  format; we can add another note ;

 

 

Bryan:

- Accept to have the second note;

- DavidF, can you own that?

 

DavidF:

-  I can.

 

Bryan:

-              138 - Tom listed this is a schema ambiguity; Tom is not in the call; Ii agree that there are ambiguities; this could be assigned to Tom to resolve on the mailing list;

 

DavidF:

- 139 should be owned by Ryan rather than me; …

 

Bryan:

- Tom noted that specification allows .. to be added to file, skeleton, group, unit, glossary, match.

 

DavidF:

- Those are the extension points; I think Ryan is the best person.

 

Bryan:

- We will deal with the remain tbds in the mailing list;

- Meeting adjourned.DavidF:

- Attendance: H, S, T, DF, L, K, Y, B, J, U, DW, A

- Don't see Fredrick; 12 voters; we have quorum.

 

Bryan:

-  Meeting minutes:https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201310/msg00003.html seconded by  Tom & Yves.  No objections;

- We have just concluded the 2nd public review; concluded on the 15th of October; a very active public review with very constructive comments.

- Public review comments tracker URL: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker

- We consider comments of the public review 1 to be frozen; the comments for the public review 2 are active but we are not accepting any new comments;

 

DavidF:

- I added a comment today, it came from the admins; those are really minor issues; I added them as 146.

 

Bryan:

- It was listed as 24 September.

- We will need to triage each of these comments; comments 100-111 have been already triaged in the 1st meeting in September;

 

DavidF:

- I did some filtering on the items; I have made a few groups of “editorial” and “minor fixes” that I believe we could approve in one go. I think these can be summery approved.

 

* Minor editorial changes - owned by David: 102, 110, 116, 124,  128, 133, 135, 136, 146

* Typos - owned by Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125

* Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145

* Example fix - owned by Bryan: 134

 

Yves:

-              What do you mean by approved? Did you make the changes?

 

DavidF:

- I called them editorial changes; they can be fixed as suggested.

 

Bryan:

- What are you asking us to approve?

 

DavidF:

- I am proposing to approve (the above listed) the comments to be fix as suggested;

 

Bryan:

-You are proposing that we accept those proposed solutions by the commenters, as approved by the TC. I will second that.

- Tom may need to leave early; will it affect the quorum?

 

DavidF:

- No

 

DavidF:

- Proposal: I move to approve the above comments as editorial changes, to be fixed as suggested by the commenters.

 

Bryan:

- Seconds the proposal.

 

Yves:

-              Some of those comments have no suggestion; for example 102, there is no wording corresponding to any suggestion.

 

DavidF:

- Yes. There is no wording, it is just a clarification.

 

Yves:

- I've seen clarifications leading to problems. I'd like to see the actual wordings.

 

DavidF:

-              Let's take out 102 then.

 

Bryan:

- Are there any others that belong to the same category?

 

Yves:

- I don't know. I didn't get a chance to have a look everything;

 

Bryan:

- Shall we quickly go through each of these?

 

DavidF:

- I wouldn't go through the Typos

 

Bryan:

- I agree.

 

DavidF:

-              134 is an example fix;

 

Bryan:

- I agree; we would change the <x> to <ph> and we would make sure that the <ph> has the required id attribute.

 

DavidF:

-              Next is 110: xml:space; I am happy to fix it as suggested.

 

Yves:

- There is no specific suggestion;

 

DavidF:

- What it basically says is that it should have the link, and the link is a normative link...

 

Yves:

- It should say white space should be spelled consistently; we have no corresponding change to it; how are you going to spell it? I know it is not important but... list of changes along with the resolution so people could look at that and approve.

 

Bryan:

- Let's take out 110 then;

 

DavidF:

- 116 is about undefined metadata; cannot be formatted as scope because it is not a value;

 

Bryan:

- The proposal is to use unformatted text, clear to me

 

DavidF:

- 124: Alphabetical order; clear enough

 

Bryan:

- Clear to me

 

DavidF:

- 128: There is a missing element that accepts extended attributes, an error correction

 

Bryan:

- I agree, clear to me

 

DavidF:

- 133: Naming issues, alphabetical issues and formatting issues

 

Bryan:

- We have a convention that says when we have concatenated words; we make the first word lower case and upper case the second word; 

 

DavidF:

- 135: No suggestions, it's a clarification; this should be taken out;

- 136: error correction, notes missing in the list of extendable elements that seems to be clear;

- 146: I fixed that in the new working draft;

- The new group for the summery approval:

* Editorial, fix as suggested:

* DavidF:  116, 124, 128, 133, 136, 146

* Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125

* Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145

* Bryan: 134 example fix

Bryan:

- I second this new list.

DavidF:

- I am going to take the votes;

yes= approve the proposed solutions

no= do not approve the proposed solutions

abstain = abstain from voting

Helena=Yes, Shirly=Yes, Tom=Yes, DavidF=Yes, Lucia=Yes, Kevin=Yes, Yves=Abstain, Bryan=Yes, Joachim=Yes, Uwe=Yes, DavidW=Yes, Asanka=Yes

11 yes, 1 abstain

Bryan:

- Aside from the non-controversial ones, several of these will require more work; I propose the remaining five minutes to take a look at the owners for each of the comments; some of the comments were not clear to me, about the ownership; I used “tbd” to denote them; we have 12 tbds on the list; people who received assignment from me, are there any objections for having your name as the owner?

DavidF:

- I am fine with my assignments.

Bryan:

- are you ok with your assignments Tom?

Tom:

- ok.

Bryan:

- I am ok with my assignments, Frederick isn't here. I will ask Frederick, Ryan isn't here either, I will also email him;

- Comment # 118: no link between type and subtype for inline code; this is something that should be owned by Tom.

DavidF:

- there are two parts to it, one that - we aim to  have the type and subtype – sub-property types with processing requirements or constraints; that basically subtype must not exist without the type; that is fair to require; you must update the subtype if you updated the type. I believe this should be a part of the fix; this is not proposed by the commenter; Yves, would you agree with also linking them with constrains and processing requirements?

Yves:

- Don't we already have that?

David:

- Not sure;

Yves:

- There is already that.

DavidF:

- Sorry for my confusion, if this in place, this is a simple fix. I agree with the proposed solution and I can take it;

Bryan:

- DavidF takes the ownership of 118.

- 119 is definitions and spelling of quote type ; type value for quote is defined as ... we have no owner for this item, it seems pretty clear and non-controversial, I will take the ownership;

Yves:

-What's the definition of quote exactly? We are just looking at the ownership;

Bryan:

- I will take ownership of 119;

- 123 was withdrawn by Yves;

- Next to be determined is xml:lang and xml:space comment #127: .... so who'd like to take the ownership of this item? I understand this one relatively well; I will take the ownership of this one.

- Next comment: #130: about translation annotation, candidate annotation;

DavidF:

- I am happy to take the ownership of 130;

Bryan:

- How about 131; sections in the specification;

David:

- We probably could do it now; it is worth discussing now - it is a very big reshuffle if we went for it; I don't think we are unhappy with the appendices; 

Bryan:

- Are you proposing that we solve this right now?

DavidF:

- I prefer to stay with the structure as is; If the TC thinks we need the rehaul. i am for the second proposal;

Bryan:

- I support Yves’ proposal. That we move the modules into the numbered portion of the specification;

DavidF:

-  I'd probably make a ballot now.

- Options: a) keep as it is, b) use sections, c) use sub-sections

Bryan:

- Any discussions needed before the ballot? I second.

DavidF:

- H:3 S:(offline) T:2 df:1 L:abs Y:3 K:3 B:3 J:3 U: 3 DW: 3 A:3

-  3 is the clear winner; 8 votes for 3; this is resolved. I can own the implementation;

Bryan:

- We have 8 mins left. Updates on the promotion liaison subcommittee meeting?

DavidF:

- People who want to stay for the P&L SC can stay for the call; it will be about the status of the state of the art report;

Bryan:

- I propose that we make changes to the remaining agenda items as follows;

- Request for new business for next time; then work on couple of more tbds

- Is there any new business proposed for the agenda next time? No new business.

DavidF:

- Before we jump to the tbds, we need to discuss comment #112 schema issues - I am not sure whether this is already resolved as Tom already committed the new schemas;

Tom:

- I believe everything has been completed and committed;

DavidF:

- Yves, are you happy with the changes that Tom made?

Yves:

- Yes. It's working now;

Bryan:

- I propose we go ahead and close this; this could be re-opened as a placeholder for further testing when making new fixes;

DavidF:

- It is good to have opened it for others; - It was not a formal approval, but no dissents reported.

Bryan:

- Good work on making those fixes.

Tom:

- Apologies, for the necessity of the fixes;

Bryan:

- The schemas are in much better shape;

- Are there any tbds that needs to be further discussed?

- Remaining tbds: 132, 137, 138,140, 141, 143,144

DavidF:

- 132 should be owned by you;

Byran :

- Agreed. 132 will be owned by me.

Bryan:

- 137: Yves and I have debated this on the mailing list - we just drop the note ; xliff is an exchange format not a processing format, this was unfriendly for some tools; or else we can make a decision to drop this note; are there any other thoughts?

DavidF:

- The note is very important; I wouldn't drop it; it is just a note; many times people have suggested changes to the specification for xliff to be processing friendly; the note clarifies that xliff is an interchange  format; processing is out of scope; Rtaher than dropping the note we can add another.

Bryan:

- Accept to have the second note; DavidF, can you own that?

DavidF:

-  I can.

Bryan:

- 138 - Tom listed this is a schema ambiguity; Tom is not in the call; Ii agree that there are ambiguities; this could be assigned to Tom to resolve on the mailing list;

DavidF:

- 139 should be owned by Ryan rather than me; …

Bryan:

- Tom noted that specification allows ctr to be added to file, skeleton, group, unit, glossary, match.

DavidF:

- Those are the extension points; I think Ryan is the best person.

Bryan:

- We will deal with the remain tbds in the mailing list;

- Meeting adjourned.



Agenda

 I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)

  A. Roll call

  B. Approve previous meeting minutes, 01 October 2013 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201310/msg00003.html


II XLIFF 2.0 (0:10 - 0:45)

  A. Public Review II ended October 5

     1. Public Review Comments are tracked here https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker

     2. Timeline https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/email/archives/201309/msg00029.html

  B. SOU Tracker https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20SOU%20Tracker

  C. XLIFF 2.0 Items

     1. Invalid files for developers from Yves https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201310/msg00005.html


III XLIFF 2.X? 3.0? (0:45 - 0:50)

    1. Freeze on Feature Tracking wiki? Or queue proposed post 2.0 features there?

    2. Do we have an official path for promoting custom namespace to supported core/module post XLIFF 2.0?

IV  Charter (Bryan to update site)

V   Sub Committee Report (0:50 - 0:55)

VI  Current and New Business (0:55 - )



Submitter Bryan Schnabel
GroupOASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC
Access This event is visible to OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC and shared with
  • OASIS Open (General Membership)
  • General Public