Thanks for pointing out the differences. I should have known to look in
the changes section. We still point to the 0522 version in the submission
document. Should we point at the 0625 version instead?
john
>>> "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>
8/5/03 8:01:49 AM >>>
Hi John,
To answer one of your
question:
> 4/Standards Review Process - the approvals process and
timing.
> At this meeting we will vote on the timing of the submission
to
> the OASIS standards review process. Chair proposes that we
submit
> the XLIFF 1.1 spec, Schema and Whitepaper for peer
review
> starting 11 Aug and ending 24 September 2003. Proposed
reviewers
> are: all OASIS TC's, LISA OSCAR, W3C i18n WG, and possibly
LRC.
> Coverage rosters for monitoring and responding to comments
and
> queries during the review process will be drawn up. If not
enough
> coverage is available during August due to holidays, etc,
then
> we'll push out the review period start date to early
September.
> FYI: document names for specs, schema's etc, are being
reviewed
> and modified in accordance with OASIS naming
conventions.
>
> </jr>The submission text is good. However,
we have a 20030522 and
> a 20030625 cs-core-xliff-1.1 version of the
document. What is
> different in the 20030625 version? We point at the
20030522 in
> most places but when Latest version: is selected the
20030625
> document comes up. This is a bit confusing. Can we clean this
up?
> I vote to approve once these issues are resolved, if
possible.
The latest version of the specification to refere to is
ALWAYS:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xliff/documents/xliff-specification.htm
(no date). The ones with date are there for history (same mechanism as
for
W3C specifications). Obviously in same case you may want to refer to
a
specific version.
The change versions are also normaly indicated
in the "Changes Since
Previous Version" appendix. In this case the change
between 20030522 and
20030625 is a correction in the XSD file (we had a
duplicated entries
"pageheader" for the datatype values, it needed to be
one "pageheader" and
one "pagefooter"). Since the attributes values are
also listed in the
specification (automatically generated from the XSD
file), it had to be
updated too.
Good luck at your dentist (I went
through that yesterday :)
Kenavo,
-yves
You may leave
a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/leave_workgroup.php