< Return to Calendar

* XLIFF TC Call (Conference Call)
Name * XLIFF TC Call (Conference Call)
Time Tuesday, 03 April 2018, 11:00am to 12:00pm EDT
(Tuesday, 03 April 2018, 03:00pm to 04:00pm UTC)

Call details inside private AI:



Attendance: DavidF, Tom, Yves, Bryan, Phil, Lucía.

Df: we have quorum.

Event Title: XLIFF TC Call

B: I move to approve March 6, 2018 meeting minutes

Y: I second.

B: meeting minutes are approved.



II. Where do we go next?

A. XLIFF 2.X or 3.0 wiki space for new features (Bryan)

Bryan: We have so far several proposals. We have the LISA standards, I am not in a position to defend that position now, I might put them in different proposals (one per Lisa standard).

Is anybody willing to take the ownership of the proposals that have not had an owner yet?

Df: Steven can help us here, he could not be make it to today’s meeting. I can assist him on the editorial front but need him as the business owner of the ULI requests

B: the change tracking module, Yves, is something you are working on?

Y: it is something that we discussed that will be discussed for the next version; I think that nobody has done any work so far on it.

B: Does anybody want to own it?

Y: Unfortunately I cannot be.

Df: ideally it should be Phil or Chase.

Df : we need owners for the features to advance on the next version. I am happy support business owners for the editorial process. The CTR version for 2.1 that we dropped has tag on our SVN. If people want to take it from there. I can show them around. It's good we demoted the 2.0 CTR, as now the owner has full freedom to shape the new CTR.

B: i will look into this to put it shape.


B. TM Profile note

DF: the tm profile is not really a module, but an informative item

B: Do we have specifications for that?

Df: we have the document model from Paul. We can have preliminary discussion here. I propose that we use the candidate module for that. Yves had another idea on how to do it.

Y: It was not really designed for that. I honestly do not see the need for a specific profile for it.

Df: the industry seems to need some guidance on how to use it. It is just an informative document on how to use it. There was a time when we thought TMX, TBX and XLIFF to have the same inline data model. With TBX it happened, but TMX cannot be updated due to legal reasons.

Y: it can be done as an informative note.

Df: what are the technical opinions? Ryan suggested that we use translation candidate. We said that translation candidate module should only contain suggestions that are relevant to the source content. This meants that all sources would need duplicated in the core tree.

Y: There are two aspects:

First aspect, here you have an XLIFF file that you want to translate and there are translation suggestions that can help you to translate, and those can be stored in the translation candidates.

The other aspect, you need a bilingual format to store translation memories, and XLIFF core can be used for that w/o even using Translation Candidates.

D: Should we describe both in the informative note ?

Y: My point is that they are not the same thing. The TMX is just for storage. Therefore, as long as it is clearly defined, it can be fine.

D: if you are using only core, it is only bilingual. With Translation Candidates we could overload the reference language and make it multilingual, useful for large scale excahnge. This is what Ryan had suggested.

B: we could use another module for this, as there are two different use cases. This is something that we can specify.

Df: we can be try to create something that cannot be called TMX. When I requested the informative note, we called « XLIFF 2.0 for [24] TM ». Do we just to have a note? Or do we want to create a new grammar reusing the core namespace or more namespaces? The advantages would be: we could use the source and target that are already defined. But what worries me is that we changed the paradigm of unit in XLIFF 2. This is something that we struggled with in the attempt to update the change tracking module. If we decide to go this way, we would need to create a new standard based on a new grammar.

B: whitin our mecahnism of modules.

D: actually no. It would be something individual. You could try to record both options under the 2.2 feature requests although tehy technically are separate. We need more discussion on this to decide where to go.

B: we will continue this interesting discussion on the mailing list. I might be the owner.

D: it is a good idea, but there might be some other issues, as for example that this might not be covered by the scope of our TC.

Df:. The docbook template we are working is not longer maintained and is not creating a good PDF, not fitting the OASIS Admin document model. We need to move to another template. It might be worth having an editors meeting, to discuss this. We only have the doc model, not he XML template. We might need some help from the docbook committee.

T: I can look into converting from our current structure to whatever we need to use. I don't have time for it until at least May.


C. ISO approval


Bryan: [reads motion from David’s email]

I move that the TC request set up of a special majority ballot with the goal to submit XLIFF Version 2.1 OASIS Standard (http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/os/xliff-core-v2.1-os.html) to ISO, the International Organization for Standardization for publication as an International Standard and request the TC Officers to present this request to the OASIS President as required by the OASIS Liaison Policy (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/liaison). 



Then the special majority ballot should look like this:


- Ballot title: Approve submitting XLIFF Version 2.1 OASIS Standard (http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/os/xliff-core-v2.1-os.html) to ISO, the International Organization for Standardization 


- Ballot question: Do you approve submitting XLIFF Version 2.1 OASIS Standard (http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/os/xliff-core-v2.1-os.html) to ISO, the International Organization for Standardization for publication as an International Standard and presenting this request to the OASIS President as required by the OASIS Liaison Policy (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/liaison)?


I'd like to make the roll call ballot to approve the special majority ballot request in the upcoming meeting, provided we'll have the quorum to do so.



Bryan : I second the request.

Df: the vote is Yes or No

Yes: Lucía, Phil, Bryan, Yves, Tom, David.

No: -

Df: The motion was approved unanimously.

Df: I would need to find the letter template we used last time and that can be used for the next phase. But first we need OASIS Admin to set up the special majority ballot.


D. XLIFF 2.0 Support in Tools (Phil) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201803/msg00013.html

Lucía: David and I, we have started creating the report that concentrates all the SOUs of 2.1, it will be available soon for discussion. For the 2.0, we have produced a report based on the SOUs collected during the approval process of the latest version. We did try to have create a second report after the first one, but I think we were too ambitious with the information that we wanted to collect and the questionnaire was too lengthy and we did not collect enough answers. But I think it will be worth making another effort, but using the simpler version of the questionnaire, i.e the one used for the SOUs.

Df: It might be worthy doing it again. And using the same questionnaire will help us to have comparable data. The spec is complex, so was the questionnaire. In the longer run, using the schematrons for automated support testing would be the best approach, but we are unfortunately too far from that, not enough manpower and expretise on the TC to design that.


III. Subcommittee and sister TC reports
A. Promotion and Liaison SC (note, moved XLIFF 2.1 press release under this topic)
B. XOMOS - Sister TC

Df :For the XOMOS. It is making a good progress. We have encountered a controversy on whether to encode the XLIFF yesNo attributes as strings restricted to yes|no or boolean. Need Yves and Phil's opinion on that.

B: Meeting adjourned.




I. Approve March 6, 2018 meeting minutes 

II. Where do we go next?
  A. XLIFF 2.X or 3.0 wiki space for new features (Bryan)

  B. TM Profile note

  C. ISO approval
  D. XLIFF 2.0 Support in Tools (Phil) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201803/msg00013.html

III. Subcommittee and sister TC reports
 A. Promotion and Liaison SC (note, moved XLIFF 2.1 press release under this topic)
 B. XOMOS - Sister TC

IV. New business

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