[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Groups - Event "XLIFF TC Conference Call" added
Date: Tuesday, 15 November 2011 - Summary === 1/ Roll call Presents: Rodolfo, Yves, Shirley, Bryan, Andrew, Tom, Fredrik, Joachim, David-W, Helena, Arle Regrets: Peter, Christian, David-F, Lucía === 2/ Approve Tuesday, 01 November 2011 meeting minutes: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201111/msg00011.html Bryan moves to accept the minutes Rodolfo seconds. No objections. === 3/ Sub Committee Reports --- 1. Inline text (Yves) Minutes: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-inline/201111/msg00003.html Look also at email on choice of types of inline: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-inline/201111/msg00004.html --- 2. XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC Charter (David) Bryan: Lucía posted the draft of the tool survey: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201111/msg00064.html ACTION ITEM: all to circulate the survey to tool makers. ACTION ITEM: Tool makers in TC to answer the survey. Rodolfo: survey talks about 1.2 Maybe not all info will be useful for 2.0 Joachim: sure, goal is to know more about 1.2 current state. Help in underlying needs for 2.0 Help when talking to senior mgt too. === 4/ XLIFF 2.0 (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking) --- 2. XLIFF 2.0 Technical issues (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#TechnicalIssuesforXLIFF2.0) Rodolfo: do we have agreement on the initial draft (in SVN)? Talking about the structure (names for later). Needed to know so I can work on the draft. Are the structure we have now acceptable? Bryan: schema is useful. Not the vehicle for approval or non-approval of feature. That's the wiki role. Current schema more like an useful exercise. e.g. no criteria yet on criteria of core vs. not-core. Rodolfo: setting up the document is tedious, so knowing about the structure we agree upon is important. Name change is certainly fine, but tree change would be more difficult. Yves, Fredrik: structure looks fine. Fredrik: non-core feature should probably in different section in doc. Rodolfo: the plan: Core in main schema, optional modules in separate schema(s) Doc has chapters for core elements. Helena: bottom line: re-segmentation and partitioning content is different. Not agreeing with having re-segmenting part of the core. Rodolfo: I'm talking about the elements not the process Helena: no issue with containers Maybe should be named <container>: otherwise <segment> is too overloaded with different meaning. David-W: so far no decision made. So premature to decide what goes in the core schema yet. Bryan: we are still deciding on what criteria for core vs module IMO it's too early to discuss schema. Rodolfo: segmentation is an accepted feature, we need to work on it. Bryan: but without criteria it may be premature. Helena: who are the owners of the criteria? Bryan: Christian and David-W I think Walter-W: just names next to it. Fredrik: bare-bones feature belongs to Christian and Rodolfo: http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#XLIFF2.0.2BAC8-Feature.2BAC8-BareBonesCore.Bare-bonesXLIFFCorewithExtensions Rodolfo: already send email months ago on this. Helena: not seen it. Other later comers may not have seen it yet too. Rodolfo: will send it again. Helena: should have a deadline on core criteria. Bryan: yes. e.g. Dec-2. Once we have this, it should go faster a easier to choose core vs. module. Fredrik, Joachim: agree Fredrik: maybe focus on what type tool should be defined for the specification. Would help to know what the core need. Rodolfo: initially was thinking: only elements to extract text. Anything beyond that can vary, so support for those are modules. Bryan: agree. Note also email thread started by Arle on what TC is trying to do. Yves: Rodolfo definition of core is similar to David-W. Helena: need to call "segmentation" more accurately. Concept of a container is needed. Bryan: should we accept this definition? Rodolfo: would propose we define core. David-W: would like to see the written statement (important for the spec) Bryan: missing part about 'interchange' Need to see the text too. Or someone could second. Good proposal, just need to see text and consider it. Arle: yes. email would be nice to start. David-W: +1 Rodolfo: seems practical proposals are not being followed. We talk about philosophy. Arle: in this case, it's important to see the exact text. Bryan: propose to discuss 2.26 http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/Feature/Add%20optional%20format%20attribute%20for%20quick%20at-a-glance%20review Bryan: at-a-glance preview David-W: any formats? Rodolfo: think 1 format is better. Otherwise too difficult to implement. David-W: XML could be useful too. Rodolfo: just one format Bryan: not to re-construct, just for a simple and just-in-time preview Agree with just 1 format. Fredrik: agree with 1 format Also: that's not core. Rodolfo: this is an attribute. Fredrik: non-core attributes should be allowed in core element Tools not supporting it can just ignore them. Bryan: agree with Fredrik Rodolfo: optional attributes then. Bryan: some attributes would be core and optional Also other attributes from other namespaces in code elements. Rodolfo: then we can limit the values of that attribute to sub-set of HTML Fredrik: agree (e.g. prevent <script>) Andrew: high-level aspects important too. Preview is one aspect only. Tying the mechanism to just preview may be shortsighted. Joachim: agree Fredrik: would break XLIFF intent maybe Bryan: good initial discussion. Will consolidate the discussion on the mailing list --- 3. Conformance criteria (good discussion at 18Oct2011, non-binding meeting) Skipped === 5/ Current XLIFF business Skipped === 6/ New Business None Meeting adjourned
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]