OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] RE: [xliff] Re: [xliff-comment] Comment on XLIFF 2.0 30 day draft

Hi Chet, David, Yves,

Chet, I wonder if I could get a ruling . . .

I am currently creating versions of my open source XLIFF applications to work with XLIFF 2.0:

xliffRoundTrip Tool http://sourceforge.net/projects/xliffroundtrip/

DITA-XLIFF Roundtrip Plugin for OT http://sourceforge.net/projects/ditaxliff/files/

Drupal XLIFF module https://drupal.org/project/xliff (caveat, I am a contributing developer, not owner of the module, but am active in doing the update)

Each of the above, as Yves characterized, will touch some, but not all modules.

In addition, I'm working on a light-weight editor that (with luck, will indeed exercise all the modules).

Do any of these count?

Also, I might be able to get an OASIS voting member company or two to kick the tires. Does that count as an OASIS member?



ps. planting a seed; has OASIS ever thought of translating their Drupal site? I know of a great XLIFF module, and some great translators that have good experience using it.
From: Yves Savourel [yves@opentag.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 6:39 AM
To: xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff-comment] RE: [xliff] Re: [xliff-comment] Comment on XLIFF 2.0 30 day draft

Hi David,

> OASIS does have requirement of 2 (2 OASIS members) or 3 (1 OASIS member + 2 external)

> before you move to OASIS standard, we are however moving towards Committee Specification.

> Implementations for the OASIS standard move will be of course discussed

> on the F2F on June 10.

I’m glad to discover there is a requirement for implementations. From past discussions in the TC I thought there were none.

I assume this requirement is the one mentioned in the first paragraph of https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#OASISstandard. It seems to be 3 Statements of Use, at least one of them from a TC member.

A statement of use is defined in the same page and says among other things:


"Statement of Use", with respect to a Committee Specification, is a written statement that a party has successfully used or implemented that specification in accordance with all or some of its conformance clauses specified in Section 2.18, identifying those clauses that apply, and stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations. The Statement of Use must be made to a specific version of the Committee Specification



This emphasis Chase’s comment. We still need to have implementations as soon as possible. Before the specification becomes a Committee Specification since we can’t change/fix anything after that.

The other comment I have (probably for an OASIS officer) is about the extent of the implementations: The text above seems to indicate that a given implementation can implement only some of the conformance clauses. My worry is that we may end up with 3 implementations doing the bare minimum and none implementing large parts of the specification (the modules for example).

That would not bode well for XLIFF 2.0 to move to OASIS Standard.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]