 XLIFF TC Meeting (Conference Call) |
|
| Name | XLIFF TC Meeting (Conference Call) |
| Time | Tuesday, 01 March 2016, 11:00am to 12:00pm EST
(Tuesday, 01 March 2016, 04:00pm to 05:00pm UTC) |
| Description | Please get the dial in information from our private Action Item here: |
| Minutes | Agenda
I Administration (0:00 - 0:10) Attendance: Lucia, DavidF, Estreen Fredrik, Soroush, Yves, Bryan, Tom C. Regrets: Felix, Patrik. B: I move to approve the meeting minutes, 16 February 2016:
B: Not Kevin on the call. D. Requesting progress of ISO submission of XLIFF 2.0 B: David F will join ISO meeting in March, Peter will join too. We will update the TC with any progress. Df: Ive talked to Peter, the good news is that we do not need a work item as Alan mentioned. It has been decided that the existing tc37 is the right committee for this. If there are some material comments in the discussions this will be address in the new version, we cannot change the current one. 2.0 can never be changed. We can produce a new version. Fr: Excellent news. Df: Yes, it seems like the subcommittee will create a special group for this and similar things. Fr: Do you have any schedule when the voting will take place? Df: Not yet. It does not need to catch any formal deadlines. Fr: If we expect that the voting by the end of the summer, it will make sense to postpone the release of 2.1, to adjust to possible material changes that they might propose. Df: I can ask them informally, but it will surely be announced on the 23rd. I am also in the process of joining the Irish standard body.
E. XLIFF 2.0 Support - Survey (Lucía)
Lucia: We have only received two answers yet. We can talk in the SC about what to do next as the deadline finished today. Df: we cannot go back to people. I was thinking of giving test suite, like preparing people to answer the survey. Fr: How many people have actually started the survey and not continue? L: Only one. Fourteen respondents opened the survey, but only one started answering. Br: If the incentive is not very clear for the respondents. What do people get from answering the surevy? Df: there are interest from the industry. It is published. It is not a certification, we cannot do that, but we publish the results. Fr: We can also have a “do not know” option for people who cannot answer. Df: I would like to revisit the idea of having this semi-automated system where a set of files (testsuite) that can help people to answer the questions. B: I do not think we can automate it, it will depend on the tool’s API. And that might be more difficult than having to answer yes/no questions. Df: In the W3C they automated the other way around: they asked you to upload your results files, that can be pass or fail. It would not be so easy to do. The more difficult part would be the out test. Fr: It depends on the tool, but we inform the user that the file is not correct, but we try not to introduce new problems. Df: it is a business decision what you do with an invalid file, but at least it should inform the user. I was thinking about making a kit for the respondents, e.g. if you catch these files as invalid, you can answer this.
F. Action Item progress (as tracked in kavi AI tracker) Df: the AI they do not give reference to the issue. B: I will look at the AI, and add the URL. B: 004 assigned to Df, 005 to F, 006 to Bryan, 007 is co-owned (the system does not allowed to have more than one owner), 008 to Y, 009 to DF, 0010 to Df, 011 to y, 012 Phil. Has anybody made any progress on their items? Y: I have not had any time to progress on this. B: Same here. Df: Souroush has submitted a new to schematron. S: I have asked for an agenda item, but it was too late (an hour before the meeting), sorry about that. B: I will create an action item for this. Df: It is on the meeting minutes from last meetings.
B: Yves and Ryan initiated new topics on the mailing lists: P and Q. Do you think that P is closed? P. * MIME type of XLIFF 2 (Yves) Fr: they are the same depending on the versions. Y: I agree with you. You can close this item.
Q. * Question on xml:space handling (Ryan) B: There is nothing controversial, but we do not have Ryan on the call to close it. Fr: I have also agree and add that preserve is always a good idea. Y: Yes, especially if you are working with something like a library, which is the case of Ryan. Fr: Yes, unless you are working with your own content you should avoid making any changes.
III Sub Committee Report (0:45 - 0:55) Df: The Sister committee requested github rather than svn, the committees can run OS projects on Github. The bad news is that the XLIFF TC it cannot own open source projects due to its IPR mode. The good news is that XLIFF OMOS can, the IPR is different. Meeting adjourned |
| Agenda | I Administration (0:00 - 0:10) B. Approve meeting minutes, 16 February 2016 D. Requesting progress of ISO submission of XLIFF 2.0 E. XLIFF 2.0 Support - Survey (Lucía) F. Action Item progress (as tracked in kavi AI tracker)
* indicates new topic, not yet discussed A. Discuss whether can be allowed at all extension points (Ryan)
|
| 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
|