Xliff TC Teleconference Meeting

Xliff TC Teleconference Meeting - 22nd April 2003

1. Roll Call

Present - Doug, Enda, Gerard, Milan, Mirek, Tony, David. John, Bryan, Christian

2. Last Weeks Minutes

John moved to accept, Mirek seconded. The minutes were accepted

3. Review state-qualifier ballot

12 of 17 votes cast

=>Motion caries @ 58%, state-qualifier will be added

General comment made by some members of TC - online ballot system is great!

Shigemichi pointed out that both needs-localisation and needs-l10n were listed as possible values for state.

This has been noted and will be clarified, needs-localisation will be removed so that only needs-l10n will remain.

4. Design Loophole

Agenda item carried over from last week.

Problem is that there are a number of different ways to specify the language of text items in an xliff file.

<xliff> has an xml:lang attribute

<file> has a source-language and target-language attributes

<source> has an xml:lang attribute

<target> has an xml:lang attribute

While xliff was originally intended to be bi-lingual, the loophole technically allows for multi-lingual files.

Different <source>s can have different xml:lang values and the same goes for <target>s

Also, it is technically possible for the xml:lang values in <source> and <target> to be different from those specified in <file>

The TC expressed the desire to leave the specification deliberately vague so that people could use the xliff format for different purposes.

It is also technically difficult to close the loophole at this stage.

The TC decided not to close the loophole at this stage.

The Chair pointed out that this leaves 2 options

leave it vague in the spec
make a clear statement about how languages work in xliff.

It was decided to make a strong recommendation in the spec that the <file> element was intended to be uniformly bi-lingual.

So, all <source>s in a <file> should have the same language, and all <target>s should have the same language.

The exception to this is the <alt-trans> element which could, for example, display a different language's translation for reference purposes.

John agreed to work on a paragraph for this to be included in the spec.

5. New suggestions for restype

Mirek & Milan feel these 3 are missing

binary?

trans-unit with type of binary, is that not the same as bin-unit?

It was decided that binary is actually the same as rcdata (in windows) which is already present.

For this reason, binary will not be included.

usercontrol?

usercontrol could be useful for custom controls

versioninfo

Version information resources

A phone vote to accept usercontrol (userdefined) and versioninfo was held

Unanimous acceptance!

A concern is expressed by Christian and agreed with by the Chair that restype was supposed to be closed off already and that we need to stick to our schedule.

6. - size-unit glyph not accurate, suggest grapheme-cluster

Chair - we've closed this before

Gerard moved not to discuss this, Doug seconded

Chair called for any objections?

No objections!

=>Item left as is, i.e. glyph

7. Plans and timetable!

Today's changes will be added by Tony and sent around as Draft13 along with John's suggestion for the recommendation in item 4

Any review comments from Doug and John, or anybody are welcome at this time.

Tony will try to get final RC for next week

Chair would like to send out final spec for next week, receive some feedback, and resubmit the amended final RC for approval at the next meeting (2 weeks from now)

Reconvene 6th May with a view to accepting the spec

8. - AOB

IPortal meeting tomorrow.

Phone number sent out on Fri

Meeting adjourned

Best regards,

Enda

xliff message