 XLIFF TC Meeting (Conference Call) |
|
| Name | XLIFF TC Meeting (Conference Call) |
| Time | Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 11:00am to 12:00pm EDT
(Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 03:00pm to 04:00pm UTC) |
| Description | Please get the dial in information from our private Action Item here: |
| Minutes | I Administration: A. Roll call: Bryan, Yves, David W, David F., Fredrik Estreen, Joachim Shurig, Lucia, Soroush, Tom Comerford, Michael Ow, Asanka, Uwe. B. Approve meeting minutes, 7 October 2014 Fredrik: I second. [no dissent] B: Meeting minutes approved.
C. XLIFF 2.0 as an ISO standard B: P&L SC and Peter are working on this topic.
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201410/msg00001.html B: anything new here? dF: it was just to tell everyone that it is available. This item should be removed from the ongoing agenda.
II XLIFF 2.1 (0:10 - 0:45) B. ITS Mapping - XLIFF 2.1 dF: There are several good reasons to use an OASIS namespace for that (most importantly agents recognizing modules by a URN prefix, different semantics due to non-wellformed spans in XLIFF), all of them discussed on the mailing list. I suggest that we record consensus on that. Is there any dissent or is more discussion required? [no dissent] B: Ok, we can record consensus and we can take this issue off the agenda. DF: The namespace is already proposed in the current working draft: urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1 Fredrik: I think it can be considered done. B: Ok, this point can be considered approved (Agenda II, B, 1)
2. *ITS scope with sm/em - Yves Yves: I think this one is resolved as well. Fredrik: I agree as well, in the discussions people agreed on that. DF: I think it is not an issue on the XLIFF side. But there might be an issue with the simplification algorithm. It is premature to say if it will be normative or informative. Fredrik: we might need some more normative language, we might need some statement around of what we consider invalid. Yves: Bryan, I think this one is solved, we just need to add some text to the module definition. dF: I think we fine for now, we will bring this up again when a detailed solution is elaborated. But all stakeholders agreed on the principle.
Yves: This one is relatively easy. There have been some inconsistencies on the examples. dF: Renat submitted this through the comment list on my request, so that it is covered by OASIS feedback IPR policy. I am working with the document.
Yves: that is just information about the current implementation, I made some changes and I wanted to make that information public. B: Everyone please have a look and give feedback to Yves on that implementation.
C. *Error in spc 2.0 in example 5.2.6 (Yves) B: We can fix that with errata or in the 2.1 version. Yves: It is just a typo. I think that we can just fix it. Fredrik: I do not know about the process of communicating errata and publishing the document. DF: From Oasis point of view the only way how to amend 2.0 is Errata, I do not about the errata process, but I think we are moving well on the 2.1, so it should be OK to to have it fixed in 2.1, rather than having a separate errata document right now. Fredrik: we can have errata on the main TC page informing people about the error. DF: I suggest that the Chair explores the process of publishing the errata, as we do not know how the process relates to a full blown publishing process and if it’s worth spending time on it. B: I will do it.
D. *Media Type Registration Template for XLIFF V2.0 Committee Specification 01 is published B: Chet has made an official announcement. DF: It would be good if we have a ballot resolution to make a provisional registration of the media type based on the CS. Independent of the progress of the provisional registration we planned to merge the template for the final registration with the 2.1 spec. B: Sure, we can vote on that. DF: I will prepare the move and I will distribute it through the mailing list.
E. *Versions and Modules - Yves Yves: I don’t have a strong opinion, but I want to know what is going to work in the long run. DF: the link to my response is on that link too. B: Users might not think of modules, but of features that tools can have. DF: it will depend on the developer/owner of the particular module, whether they want the tools to work with the latest version of the module or not. Fredrik: I think point 3 is hard to resolve if we say yes to points 1 and 2. I think it will cause confusion. Joachim: I do not think that there is a perfect solution in the real world. Fredrik: We can change the answer to point one. DF: I think discussion should continue. B: we will have it on the agenda for next meeting.
D: I cannot report progress on the ISO submission as Peter is missing. There was a delay introcuced in Jamie coming back to Peter with the templates. Also there is no point in having an SC meeting today w/o Peter. There will be the 5.5th Symposium next week in Vancouver, please come and register.
Fredrik: I am looking for a standardised way how to embed information in inline tags. I am not sure if that can be a good addition to the standard, what do you think? DF: Like a reference guide? Fredrik: a way of embedding information in a predictable way. Fredrik: I will start the discussion on the mailing list, but it will not be for the 2.1 version, as it can be a complex and long process. |
| Agenda | I Administration (0:00 - 0:10) B. Approve meeting minutes, 7 October 2014 C. XLIFF 2.0 as an ISO standard
II XLIFF 2.1 (0:10 - 0:45) B. ITS Mapping - XLIFF 2.1 C. *Error in spc 2.0 in example 5.2.6 (Yves) D. *Media Type Registration Template for XLIFF V2.0 Committee Specification 01 is published E. *Versions and Modules - Yves
|
| Submitter | Bryan Schnabel |
| Group | OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC |
| Access | This event is visible to OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC and shared with
|