Felix, Phil, Yves, dF, Bryan, Lucia, Soroush, Tom
I. Approve meeting minutes for 21-February, 2017
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201702/msg00185.html
Bryan: I move that the above link is the official minutes of record for our previous meeting on 21st Feb 2017.
Yves: I second.
Brian: If no objections, it’s approved.
II. XLIFF 2.1 csprd02 issues
Issue 41- Clarify ITS Module attributes definitions (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-41)
dF: After some work and discussion with Yves, the wordings on mapping is removed since the attributes are no longer mapped and are now out of OASIS namespace. Mapping still exists on those few cases where it is required (e.g. domain). I move that we resolve the issue by applying the proposed resolution (Restate the definitions to make clear that the W3C namespace attributes are re-used and not mappings) .
Bryan: I second.
dF: If no dissent, it’s approved.
Issue 36- mtConfidence attribute namespace clarification (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-36)
dF: It’s a child issue of the previous issue which has been addressed, but not marked as “resolved” yet. I move that we set issue 36 to “resolved” with the proposed solution of clarifying the attribute namespace(W3C).
Bryan: I second.
dF: If no objection, the issue is resolved.
Issue 40- Docbook anchors with itsm_ prefixes for its: attributes (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-40)
dF: To summarize, the anchors are using “itsm_” prefix as part of their naming, but these are hidden identifiers and the prefix has no techncal significance as a fragid or namespace prefix. So I made it clear in section 5.9.12 which attributes belong to each namespace (W3C, OASIS and XML). I move that we resolve the issues with the above edits in place but without changing the identifiers (won’t fix).
Felix: I second.
dF: If no objection, it’s approved.
Issue 33- wrong namespace in ITS Rules for Domain datacat (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-33)
dF: It’s fixed by Felix and revised by Yves. I move we fix this issue as suggested.
Yves: I second.
dF: If no dissent, it’s approved.
Issue 45- wrong namespace for id in the ITS module (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-45)
dF: It was fixed by Felix and myself. The changes were made in its.xsd by declaring xml:id on affected elements, by removing the its:id declaration and by changing the attribute prose. I move we mark this issue as fixed.
Bryan: I second.
dF: If no dissent, it’s approved.
Issue 28- Comments in the draft (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-28)
dF: Most of the comments were replaced by examples. The contentious point is on whether or not we should repeat the tool reference definition in XLIFF spec.
Yves: There are two question with regard to this issue; a)what are the advantages of keeping ITS definitions in XLIFF spec and b)if we decide to do so, why not to exactly cite ITS with no changes and re-writing (notion of “triple” is new in annotatorsRef definition of XLIFF and might be confusing)?
dF: It makes the spec more useful for readers to have all the related information in one place.
Yves: Maybe it would be better to just replace them with links and pointers to original data categories.
Felix: I would propose to continue discussing this with Yves and David via email, I don’t see a consensus here.
dF: Sure, we should leave this for an offline discussion.
Issue 37- B.1 XML Schemas Tree needs updated (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-37)
dF: Tom is the assignee for this issue.
Tom: I have not yet updated this, will do today.
dF: We could just add the second XSD artefact for ITS module as the minimalistic fix. But, we should redo the tree to represent all validation artefacts. So, I move that we change the tree to reflect XSD, Schematron and NVDL artefacts.
Bryan: I second.
dF: If no dissent, it’s approved for implementation.
Issue 39- empty Examples section in the ITS Module (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-39)
dF:Since Felix did not have time to implement the issues, we will postpone this one until the next meeting. However, we could agree on the resolutions: either add examples or drop them.
Felix: Agree with the resolution as described by David.
dF: I move that the three-part resolution is approved and the editing team will deal with that by the next meeting.
Bryan: I second.
dF: If no objections, it’s approved.
Issue 46- type for srcLang and trgLang not declared in the core xsd (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-46)
dF: It is a Core issue from 2.0, a bug in XSD which would allow any string (even empty) for the attributes. I believe we should fix this since validation artefacts are stronger than the spec according to OASIS policy.
Felix: I support fixing this issue.
Phil: I would also support fixing this.
dF: I move to fix this issue in our XSD (srcLang and trgLang are xs:language) and also on top of it to add full BCP 47 validation in our Schematron artefact.
Bryan: I second.
dF: If no objection, it’s approved to be edited in validation artefacts.
Issue 42- Locale Filter in 2 places (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-42)
dF: I implemented the clarification. But this issue would require more discussion. [Yves stepped out]
Issue 43- Inconsistent provisions for Locale Filter at structural elements (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-43)
dF: This is an error to prohibit this attribute on structural elements. This issue would also require further work. [Yves stepped out]
Issue 34- ITS rules mapping for ITS namespace (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-34)
dF: We should remove those rules but keep a comment stating the reason for the missing rule is that the category is directly accessible through the ITS namespace.
Felix: It sounds fine.
dF: I move that the above proposal is applied.
Tom: I second.
dF: If no objections, it’s approved.
Issue 35- Issues related to ITS Localization Note (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-35)
dF: I would agree on adding a general warning (in the introductory part) on sm/em incapability around this issue. Felix, could we make the its rules in its.sch more adequate?
Felix: Not sure,I think this is not feasible with XPath, because of the scope of XFLIFF notes, which is hard to express with XPath ITS rules.
dF: I think it’s a part of the partial overlapping issues. The issue is basically a scope mismatch; XLIFF notes mey be not accessible for ITS processors in a fully compatible manner, but I believe that the note/comment annotation is the XLIFF feature that has to be used to express ITS Localization Note. And here is the overlap; we do not need to and must not introduce a new note mechanism, but to enforce the roundtrip mechanism.
Yves: I agree with you on mapping ITS L10 Note category into XLIFF notes. But my concern is that if we cannot track it by an ITS processor correctly, then it is not an ITS data category. It would not be feasible. Maybe we could state that it’s not an ITS data category and provide guidelines on how to carry that information [L10n note] into XLIFF. Eventually, it’s not an overlap since it’s not completely supported by processors.
dF: Which section than? I don't think it is "not represented". It was fully present before.. I still think partial overlap is the best description.. This issue would also need more work.
Issue 38- need to change NVDL parsing logic (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-38)
dF: Soroush just submitted the new NVDL. Soroush, please share your notes on the logic of the fix as a comment on JIRA issue. Not just with Felix.
Soroush: I will.
dF: We could approve the fix in the next meeting.
Bryan: We covered all issues that were planned. If no other business, the meeting is now adjourned.
|
XLIFF TC Call (Conference Call)