Agenda
Attendance: David, Tom, Lucía, Bryan.
Df:We have quorum. 4/6
B: I move to approve May 15, 2018 meeting minutes
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201807/msg00003.html
Df: I second.
B : Meeting minutes approved.
-- ISO approval--
DavidF: ISO formatting. Update?
Tom: 1. For the DocBook conversion, I’ve found the brief description of the differences to be
quite incomplete, and there are validation errors in the converted files. I need to track them all
down and update my conversion process. There’s a transform script that the DocBook committee
makes available, and although it’s acknowledged as not complete, I may be able to find useful
information within it.
2. Following is the relevant portion of my email conversation with Ken Holman, eliding the
updates on our respective families and other personal notes.
TL;DR: it’s likely that we can get the stylesheets for ISO submission, in exchange for
feedback, but vacation schedules are delaying a definitive answer.
DavidF: we can start with the template for version 2.2. When there is the issue of styling. ISO
styling is important. I did not see a svn update. It would be good if you could populate it.
Tom: There should be OASIS stylesheets for Docbook 5. I believe several committees use it.
dF: sure but the ISO styling stylesheets from Ken are now more important
Df: We met with Patrick Durusau from TAB. We had a pleasant meeting. He complimented the normative vs. informative language of the spec. Si I think we might get shortlisted again..
Df: we can empower the editorial team to do the job, so that we can skip the summer meetings until September. The quorum attendance seems to be difficult to achieve.
B: we can resume our work on the second meeting of September (18th Sep).
B: about the current web meeting system, we can find an alternative.
Df: If you know any other system, that would be good. Lync is quite clunky..
B: I take an unofficial AI to search for possibilities.
Df: Call for dissent: The TC instructs the editors (David and Tom) to prepare the ISO version of the XLIFF 2.1 OASIS standard.
B: I second
Approved by consensus
Df: Call for dissent: The TC approves the creation of the XLIFF 2.2 repository under OASIS GitHub organization, and instructs the editors to create the DocBook 5 version of XLIFF 2.1 including the artifacts as the starting point for the 2.2 Vesrion.
B: I second.
Df: Do you know if there is a docbook5 for OASIS note? I guess it shouldn't be too different in the xml structure, but should be rather different in the styling.
T: I will ask about it.
-- XLIFF 2.2 wiki space for new features (Bryan)--
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/FeatureTracking
dF: we do not have any updates on the new features.
B: I do not have any updates.
-- Subcommittee and liaison reports--
Df: There is one important liaison topic. It is the review time for TAPPIC T1/WG3 XLIFF Extraction and Merging Best Practice.
https://github.com/GALAglobal/TAPICC/releases/tag/XLIFF-EM-BP-prd_01
Df: I would be good to have some feedback from the TC.
Df: TBX is progressing from dis to fdis.
Df: Other liaison or things to report?
L: Regarding TAPPIC and the deliverables it might produce. I have a doubt on the difference between the terms used by different organisations, mainly with the term “recommendation” by the W3C,
could that be considered a synonym of standard? And how would be considered the products that
TAPPIC will produce? “Best practices”?.
Df: Different organisations use different terms. Industry consortia, such as W3C or IETF are deliberately using terminology that is different from traditional SDOs. W3C Recommendations are the de facto standards of the Open Web platform. So yes, they are generally considered standards. They are as normative as you can get in W3C.
Regarding TAPPIC. In OASIS or W3C, the TAPPIC best practices would be just called a “note” [committee/note or working group note respectively]. In ISO, they would be called “technical reports”. In IETF Informational RFCs. If we were republishing a TAPICC informational best practice, we would be calling it a TC Note.
The sister committee is making good progress in JLIFF. The JLIFF 2.1 schema might be completed by the 24th July.
.
Df: On record, the SOU report has been published.
https://markmail.org/thread/4wlqrslipbn6upvl
-- New business--
B: I will start working on the calendarisation of the new version progress.
B: Meeting adjourned.
|
XLIFF Meeting (Conference Call)