RE: [xliff-inline] v1.2 to v2.0 mapping

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Hi Bryan,

> Seeing this in its entirety makes me think about 
> the task of communicating the inline SC deliverable 
> to the TC. The work is so massive, so important, 
> and maybe so different than 1.2, that I think we 
> as an SC need to be thinking of best ways to 
> communicate, and fold this into the larger TC spec.

Yes, this is certainly a lot to absorb for anyone who has not been following the progress.

But I think we can make all this "digestible" if:

a) we decompose it in smaller parts (Always going back to Descartes's Discourse of the Method, part II) for example: separate inline codes from annotations, permissions, added codes, etc.

b) be very clear on what term we use and what they mean: I've noticed all committees have tendency to argue about the same thing: people agree but don't realize it because they use different terms for the same thing.

b) as you noted, we also need to communicate better with the TC, and do this in advance. So no one is surprised by anything. Maybe I can try to summarize some of the themes where SC is more or less stable in recorded presentations with examples. This way anyone can watch that at leisure and even provide feedback to the SC. That may also help the SC: to be sure everyone is on the same page :)

Cheers,
-ys