Re: [xliff-comment] Next steps regarding your very useful XLIFF 2.0 Public Review comments

[Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de>]

Hi Bryan,

Thanks a lot for your feedback. This looks very good indeed, and I'm 
looking forward to the revised version of the specification. And, of 
course, some of my comments are still open...

Regarding the Glossary module it will be also my pleasure to further 
discuss remaining issues with Ryan.

One question: How is the OASIS process with resolving comments, e.g. do 
you need my "official" acceptance of the proposed solution(s), which 
would be similar to the W3C process?

Thanks, and all the best,

Jörg

On July 01, 2013 at 23:30 (CEST), Schnabel, Bryan S wrote:
> Jörg,
>
> On behalf of the TC, I want to again thank you for the very useful
> comments. As you know, we are tracking them here on our wiki
> https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker
>
> In an effort to not fill your inbox with individual replies, I hope you
> don’t mind that I will reply to them, but comment number, in this single
> email.
>
> Several were simply accepted at face value, and will be implemented (as
> documented on the wiki). Also, you and Yves have continued your
> discussions publically on the comment list.
>
> I will address the remainder here.
>
> csprd01 015 - Processing Requirements for XML PIs: This was also called
> to our attention in comment 013. We had an electronic ballot
> (https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=2432 ), and voted
> to say the Processing Instructions SHOULD be preserved.
>
> csprd01 018 - Structure and Structural Elements: Glossary module: This
> is also covered in comment 024. We are very close to resolving this. We
> discussed this at the Face to Face meeting in London and came to
> consensus
> (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201306/msg00009.html), We
> then held a ballot
> (https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/ballot.php?id=2438)
> and voted to remove Glossary from File. In summary: A] make Glossary
> Module more expressive: 1) make <glossentry> extensible by both elements
> and attributes, 2) make children extensible by attributes, 3) Introduce
> id to be able to reference back from <mrk type="term">; B] Remove
> <glossary> from <file>
>
> Ryan King is the owner of this topic and will be happy to follow up if
> you have further questions.
>
> csprd01 025 - Format Style Module: I am grateful for this good advice. I
> will add a robust, more sophisticated example that supports images.
>
> csprd01 026 - Metadata Module: This is also tied to comment 048. I think
> it is very good advice. I will add the example you suggest.
>
> Prior to the second public review I will send you a link to the improved
> specification that incorporated the comments you sent, and I will ask
> for your opinion of the resolution of your comments.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Bryan