[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Groups - XLIFF TC Monthly Teleconference modified
XLIFF TC Monthly Teleconference has been modified by Peter Reynolds (peter.reynolds@bowneglobal.ie).
Date: Tuesday, 17 August 2004
Time: 04:00pm - 05:00pm Greenwich Mean Time
Event Description:
Tuesday, 20 April 04:00PM London/Dublin / 08:00 AM PST
International Dial-In: +44 118 376 9023
Meeting ID: 30543
Agenda:
Agenda:
1/roll call
2/approve minutes of last meeting:http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00013.html
3/ Work in Progress:
a.Discussion on Adding extension points at Source & Target:
Non-binding ballot result:
(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/ballot.php?id=517&;)
5 votes for 'Add unconstrained namespace extension points'
5 votes for 'Add constrained namespace extensions points'
Since the vote Bryan has sent out a mail suggesting 5 approaches for dealing with this.
see: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00007.html
There has been some email discussion on this.
Gerard outlined his and John's response and their concerns over interoperability.
Christian suggested that we were concerned with everything that was in the XLIFF namespace but not with other namespaces. There was a debate about whether or not other namespaces should be ignored or not.
Christian suggested that there should be a flag to say you are using a namespace at an extension point.
David raised the possibility of having some to flag what sort of behaviour is permitted for a particular namespace. There was a short discussion on this and whether this could be achieved using the translation directives suggestions from Richard Ishida of the W3C.
Bryan further reduced the approach to the marking content in extended Source/Target to two options: 1/DEGREES OF CONSTRAINT FOR EXTENDED ATTRIBUTES on Source and Target; 2/SIGNALING TRANSATION INSTRUCTIONS (YES or NO) FOR EXTENDED ELEMENTS in Source and Target. Full discussion is presented here: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00017.html
Yves' Use Cases: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00014.html
Mat suggested adding a new element (extend) to store state and other Source/Target level attributes. http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00018.html There was some discussion on the merits and problems with this approach.
Christian suggested that non-translatable text nodes in Source/Target extensions should be referenced using serialization, and not stored inline with translatable content. http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00026.html There was additional discussion on this proposal.
b. Representation Guides:
i. HTML / RTF:
Latest update: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00012.html
Major issue to be resolved is whether or not we can extend at Source and Target. Need to review agree on approach for extending Source and Target. Review any additional progress made by Yves.
ii. WinRes (John, Yves)
iii. Resx (Enda, Gerard) http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200403/msg00007.html - will discuss Florian's issues document: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00001.html
iv. Java Resource Bundles (Tony & John)
v. XForms ( Andrzej )
c. Unresolved issues:
a.Mat: Translation of Voice XML Issues
Initial: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200403/msg00016.html
Latest Update: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200403/msg00017.html
This issue also relates to adding extension points to Source and Target, and could be more easily dealt with if extensions were permitted. May also be dealt with using processing instructions. No resolution at this time. Will approach W3C i18n WG for their take on this.
b.Mat: Accepting Suggested Translations In XLIFF
Initial: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00000.html
Latest Update: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200403/msg00017.html
Mat raised the issue of how to identify which provided Alt-Trans, if any, has been used by a translator. The TC suggested that this could be dealt with by using extensions, or phase-name. Mat to author some proposals and bring back to the TC for further input.
4/ Status Report from Segmentation SC (Magnus)
5/ Related work in other standards groups:
Gerard announced they have established Special interest groups to look at TBX link and localisation directive. Any interested in these should contact Gerard. Gerard will liaise with the TC on this.
Tony asked whether it was decide if we could use SRX - Gerard will check this out.
6/ Proposed change to OASIS IPR Policy
The draft IPR Policy is at
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/members-only/download.php/7515
and the FAQ is at
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/members-only/download.php/7554
7/ All other business
Minutes:
Agenda:
1/roll call
Tony, Yves, David, John, Mat, Peter, Magnus, Doug, Christian, Eiju
Apologies: Gerard, Florian
2/approve minutes of last meeting:http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00013.html
Minutes were approved. David proposed Yves seconded
3/ Work in Progress:
a.Discussion on Adding extension points at Source & Target:
Non-binding ballot result:
Tony outlined the discussion so far on the extension points. There was consensus on adding extension points but an equal number wanted unconstrained as wanted constrained extension points. Brian had sent a mail with 5 options being presented. See: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00007.html
Tony outlined these five options.
(1) Restrict to specific namespace(s), strict processing.
(2) Restrict to specific namespace(s), lax processing.
(3) Restrict to specific namespace(s), skip processing.
(4) Allow any namespace, strict processing.
(5) Allow any namespace, lax processing.
Tony also mentioned that Christian suggested that there should be a flag to say you are using a namespace at an extension point and the discussion on whether this could be achieved using the translation directives suggestions from Richard Ishida of the W3C.
Christian raised a number of questions to start this. Which namespaces do we permit? What are the processing expectations? There was also a separate point of whether we should separate the localisation content from the meta data.
Christian gave an example of how we would deal with an external namespace and whether tools should be able to deal with it. Tony suggested that it was not a good idea to be able to process a specific namespaces. He suggested we are reaching a consensus where it was up to the user to deal with processing the namespace but we want the localizable content separated from the meta data. However, after further discussion there were other issues being raised which suggested that we were not yet at a consensus.
Tony suggested that we put forward Brian’s 5 options as a ballot to help conclude this discussion.
Yves suggested he would send a mail which put more details on how the different way to process extensions would work.
This can be seen at http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200408/msg00006.html
b. Representation Guides:
i. HTML / RTF:
Latest update: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200407/msg00012.html
Major issue to be resolved is whether or not we can extend at Source and Target. Need to review agree on approach for extending Source and Target.
Everyone should review the material from Yves and we will discuss and finalise this at our next meeting.
ii. WinRes (John, Yves) – nothing to report.
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200207/msg00004.html
Subsequently:
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]