[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: XLIFF TC Telelconference Summary
XLIFF TC Meeting Summary Date: Tuesday, 01 June 2010 === 1/ Roll call Present: Asgeir, Bryan, Yves, Andrew, Dimitra, David, Rodolfo, Doug. Regrets: Christian. Andrew is official voting member starting today. === 2/ Approve Tuesday, 18 May 2010 meeting minutes: Accept, reject, or amend. (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201005/msg00011.html) - Asgeir moves to accept the minutes - Bryan seconds. - No objections === 3/ Current XLIFF business 3.1. Updates on the 1st International XLIFF Symposium Lucia out. Dimitra? Dimitra: 2 or 3 more submissions. More than 7/8 yet. Web site updated. Bryan: sounds like we'll have good speakers. Dimitra: will work on the rooms after we have all submissions. === 3.2. June/July/August availability poll (Lucia) (http://www.doodle.com/68fye3zmktwcuuzs) Maybe August would have less participants, but overall things look ok for all summer. === 3.3. "Some Interesting Comments" Thread (Yves, Dimitra) (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201005/msg00012.html) Bryan: interesting blog entries. Rodolfo: Saw a record of MemoQ presentation where XLIFF was presented. Some concerns noted there, when comparing tools' support. Agreement was that it's good that things moves forward. Example of issue: extensibility. Exchange between different tools is the part to watch out for. David: Conformance clauses is the important thing we need to do, so compliance is certifiable. Rodolfo: no clause for now. That's a problem. David: for 2.0 then we need to make sure we have conformance. Need to keep this in mind while working on the features. === 3.4. Conformance clause Bryan: non-trivial, but needed. Agree with Rodolfo, David, Dimitra. Should help to get "true" interoperable format. For 1.2 we thought we escaped the OASIS policy, but now I agree that it's very needed. Maybe in some cases extensibility can be restricted for better interoperability. Dimitra: did some tests: interesting results. Rodolfo: we need to work only with XLIFF file, not tools. Extensibility is useful, but for example we could ask to have the schemas of the extension available. David: we talked about that. Did we had a solution? Asgeir: we use lax for validation. For 1.2 we have both: strict, transitional uses skip, where we should have used lax. Bryan: lax is the way to go. Asgeir: Conf clause: we should limit us to 2.0. Too much work otherwise. David: agree Dimitra: maybe with the version before, not two. David: we should do conformance clause only for 2.0. Bryan: 2.0 cannot really map back to previous version. Rodolfo: agree Yves: agree too. Bryan: need to look if we have existing clauses. Maybe we could define conformance clause independently (like inline), so for charter. Asgeir: should conformance clause be part of the requirement? Rodolfo: not fine grain level, but we need to restrict features if they complicate validation. Bryan: standalone conformance clause is needed (OASIS policy). But having impact on conformance per feature is good idea too. David: that's a technicality. Verifiability/test conformance per feature is important. Then that fulfills OASIS requirement. Rodolfo: can't do that: there is a strict template for the conformance. Bryan: maybe we could do both as long as the conformance section is there. Rodolfo: would probably be ok. But text inside the doc are not "conformance clauses". Conformance clause is very specific. E.g. valid XML and valid with provided schema. David: So example refer to another part of the specification. Maybe could do the same for other parts. Rodolfo: Work if we talk about XLIFF documents not tools. Could be written by hand. David: yes we speak about docs. Asgeir: what about processing? Can we have conformance clause talk about that? Rodolfo: before/after processing should be conformant. Cannot talk about processing. e.g. one tool generates valid XLIFF, but if you add blank line, not working anymore, even if it's still valid XML/XLIFF. Do we judge tool or document? Asgeir: of course. But what about process based on textual definition in the specification? Rodolfo: processing doesn't matter, just the document before and after. (e.g. translator adds translation). Asgeir: agree, but certain behaviors could be validated/prescribed. e.g. segmentation (today) is not prescribed. It could. David: example means that we would allow them to ignore seg-source. Rodolfo: can't judge the tool, just the document. Bryan: sounds like we are starting to discuss different types of conformance (doc/software/etc.) Rodolfo: what doc vs software would change for the document itself? Bryan: meant 'features': for example does a tool support it or not? Rodolfo: then you judge the tool, not the document. David: look at different groups of transformation. Basic, advance, etc. Bryan: very good discussion, but need to move on to other topics. Let's continue on future meetings. And by Email! === 4/ XLIFF Inline text SC report (LISA/OSCAR proposal to re-establish a partnership in developing common text markup) 1. Yves' SC report Yves: Meeting next week. Asgeir has created new wiki pages for 'final draft' vs 'working area'. We are now starting to discuss the requirements I also contacted Arle to get status on OSCAR input. No answer yet. Rodolfo: Arle was very busy, but now he has the task to spend some time on standards. === 5/ XLIFF 1.2 Errata Status Update 1. Rodolfo's report Rodolfo: Lucia will work on errata with my help. Not started yet. Hope to be back on track in July. Bryan: phone down. Won't be back. Rodolfo: Time to adjourn. -end-
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]