[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] Groups - Standing XLIFF Teleconference (Bi-Weekly)modified
Hi Yves: Yes, the filenaming conventions have been changing frequently and you're right that it's only a draft. Before you make any changes, I'll get official clarification from Karl Best - I agree with you that we should do is create a URL named xliff-core-1.1-cs.html that links into xliff-specification.html. This would be the least work-intensive option for us. Regards, Tony Yves Savourel wrote: >Sorry I didn't know we had a new version of the filename conventions. But >you will note that: > >1- That illustrates the problem with OASIS recommendation: if they had a >mechanism for which there is a unique filename to look at, regardless of the >version, I would have pointed at the latest specifications for filename. > >2- They don't respect their own convension, that document is a working >draft, and should be named >chairs-filenaming-1.0-draft-02.html not chairs-filenaming-02.html. > >Also, without an additional field (revison number or date) it's going to be >difficult to keep track of fixes. >I guess we should call the latest version of 1.1 xliff-core-1.1-cs.html and >just link to it from xliff-specification.html. The main problem is that >there are already many links to the specifications and they go to >xliff-specification.html, not to the various filenames OASIS keeps comming >up with (it's still a working draft...). > >-ys > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tony Jewtushenko [mailto:tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com] >Sent: Tue, August 05, 2003 8:36 AM >To: ysavourel@translate.com >Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [xliff] Groups - Standing XLIFF Teleconference >(Bi-Weekly)modified > > >The OASIS document naming requirements >(http://www.oasis-open.org/spectools/docs/chairs-filenaming-02.html) require >us to save our Committee Spec to the following naming convention: >xliff-core-1.1-cs.html. Date number suffix is specifically not recommended >for the Committee Spec version. The standards review process requires that >we abide by all the OASIS rule and requirements. > >Yves - can you please upload the correct comittee spec with the OASIS >approved file name? > >Regards, >Tony > > > >Yves Savourel wrote: > >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.p >hp > > > > >-- >Tony Jewtushenko mailto:tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com >Principal Product Manager direct tel: +353.1.8039080 >ST Tools Technology Team >Oracle Corporation, Ireland > > >You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/leave_workgroup.php > > > -- Tony Jewtushenko mailto:tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com Principal Product Manager direct tel: +353.1.8039080 ST Tools Technology Team Oracle Corporation, Ireland
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]