OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: XLIFF TC Call - Summary (Corrcted)

XLIFF TC Call - Summary
Date:  Tuesday, 03 May 2011
Time:  11:00am - 12:00pm ET

One correction: Changed "Lomis" to "Loomis"
(Sorry Steven)

=== 1/ Roll call

Present: Yves, David W, Rodolfo, Lucìa, Bryan, Peter, Tom, Christian, David F, Steven, Helena

New members: Tom Comerford (Supratext), Steven Loomis (IBM (ICU/CLDR projects))

=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 19 April 2011 meeting minutes:

Bryan moves to accept the minutes
Rodolfo seconds
No objections

=== 3/ XLIFF 2.0 (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)
Note from Bryan: The momentum of XLIFF 2.0 work is encouraging. 
Let's take a moment to  evaluate this methodology, verify that we like it, 
or make adjustments to the methodology if needed (for example, we seem to have
abandoned 5.; does 5. go away, or shall we revisit it in time?)

Bryan: good tactical moves, but we need to be careful for strategy.
Our methodology has changed, need to make sure it's fine.

Rodolfo: Like the pragmatic approach we have now, then we can match against the requirements.

Christian: Split approach maybe:
a) gather requirements, draw up a design, etc.
b) hand-on approach: get a schema and test.
Just doing b would be difficult.

Rodolfo: b is just internal, then we can draft. But think it's too early for asking for feedback.

Bryan: not contradictory viewpoints, like the split approach
Maybe we can tie to the different items of b to requirements
At some point will need to vote to accept/reject the work done

=== 3.1. XLIFF 2.0 Core

a. Segmentation
begin: (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201104/msg00005.html)
most recent (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201104/msg00034.html)

b. Philosophy of core vs. modules

c. Compliance
- note, shall we table compliance until we begin Conformance criteria discussion?

d. Rodolfo's schema: to track ongoing proposals? And updates to Yves' Rainbow

Rodolfo: question about the latest schema
What are the thoughts?
Is this the "core"?

Not just segmentation: it has more than segmentation (you can put the translation, matches, notes)

Bryan: Holder for extracting: what is it exactly?
Rodolfo: place holder for extracted text and attribute for skeleton
You can use PI for additional things (tool-specific).

Bryan: think core should have mechanism for skeleton storage
PI and CDATA are not enough
Rodolfo: holder for skeleton may not belong to the core, should note be also in core?
What is missing/extra

Yves: maybe we could postpone decision on what is the core or not
Lucìa: should also start on method to decide what is core or not
(which criteria to use)
Rodolfo: for me core is what is mandatory
e.g. holder for source is need, but not the notes

Bryan: also need to take into account conformance/compliance
Implementers should be able to implement easily the core
Rodolfo: e.g: translation of binary (bin-unit in 1.2)

Bryan: so we continue to add feature, document them, and eventually decide on the core and modules.

Peter: adding to Rodolfo idea about what is the core.
Agree at first, but on second thought: things that are optional may need to be in the core.
Otherwise it causes interoperability issues between tools.

Rodolfo: to avoid interoperability issue: we don't allow custom extensions, but provide a full set of features
Peter: hard to do for tools to support all features.
Maybe need guidance on this.
e.g. software string oriented tool may need to support more than doc-oriented tools.
May need to prioritize functionalities
Bryan: think so too.
Core as a lowest common denominator may be better, then additional modules for other features
(e.g. core+software, core+doc, etc.)
And get tools maker input for specific modules
Peter: all tools implement the core, and then whatever modules they want in full.
Rodolfo: would give option like: I support xliff for doc, or xliff for software

Helena: do we have definition about 'software' and 'doc'?
Rodolfo: just general terms here.
Helena: sure, but we'll need definitions for what those module names mean
Maybe need guidance from procurement system point-of-view
Bryan: agree, may need to reach out more for specific modules
Helena: like direction to have specialty modules, but will need some definition
Bryan: if we do a good job, we'll be able to release 2.0 pretty fast, because we can add modules nimbly.
Helena: +1
Rodolfo: e.g. pharmaceutical industry is example where they may need extra validation requirements
Helena: modules need to be driven by the interested parties

=== 3.2. XLIFF 2.0 Modules

=== 3.2.3. XLIFF 2.0 Attributes - Rodolfo
- note, do we want attributes to be discussed at this level?
or should they be discussed under 1. and 2. ?

Not discussed (time).

a. Translation status values for 2.0 - Yves

Not discussed (time).

=== 2.4. Conformance criteria

Not discussed (time).

=== 2.5. Review items approved in section 1 (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)
(we now have 4 approved new features and 16 proposed features to be evaluated)

Not discussed (time).

=== 4/ Current XLIFF business (hard stop at H:45 to cover this item)

=== 4.1. Peter's request that our TC, along with former OSCAR members discuss OASIS/XIFF taking over TMX/SRX
a. Helena's announcement about Unicode Localization Interoperability Technical Committee

Peter: LISA standard have been donated to ETSI
Anybody can join the ISGs, but seems that it's not quite the case. Can join as observers. Pay per meeting.
Not understanding how this works. For TC member can only join for limited time and exceptionally
Seems there is confusion on how this work.
ETSI seems about mobile communication, etc.
Think this is a way to expand their interests. View this negatively.
Think Unicode/OASIS were not consulted at the later stage

Helena: yes, it's not trivial to join an ISG
ISG may ask for extra funding from its member. Seems vague and high-level for now.
Current take is it'll stay an ISG (not a TC)
Another concern: it's an European body

David-F: think it was too difficult to sort out the legal issues to make the standard public
Think it's just a 'parking' place for now.
Seems difficult to develop in this system.
But good to have the existing standards 'parked' somewhere

Rodolfo: no input from LISA
David-F: GALA say nothing happened legally so far.

Helena: about ULI: W3C has no resource to handle localization-related things (will work through Unicode)
How do we ensure we don't overlap between ULI/TOASIS-TC etc.

David-F: +1. 
Think ULI works on segmentation

Peter: think ETSI complicates this for TMX/SRX/etc.
For XLIFF we should look at liaison between Unicode and OASIS

Bryan: top of the hour.
Attendees can recommend to postpone and shall we continue?

Helena: maybe offline meeting on this topic is a good solution
Peter: no point for now
Helena: want to make sure we are on the same page. Can be liaison between XLIFF TC and ULI
David-F: we need a separate meeting.
Helena: want to get everyone's opinion. Send me a note if you want to participate to a meeting on this.
Bryan: let's make it an email thread so all TC members know about it.

=== 4.2. ISO/OASIS XLIFF - XLIFF as an ISO standard (Peter)

Peter: little to report.
No answer from Kara about MLIF

=== 4.3. 2nd Annual XLIFF Symposium in Poland progress (Peter)

Peter: no action needed so far.

=== 4.4. XLIFF Symposium 1 Debrief: "Voice of our customer" (Christian)
- Christian is in contact with Multilingual and has written to Robin Cover

=== 4.5. Gathering common extension points from 
existing XLIFF Tools as a guide for 2.0 features (Bryan, Thomas)
- Lucia has taken over Micah's matrix
- David F is investigating funding for XLIFF tools page

David-F: long term thing. (for 2012)
On track.

=== 4.6. XLIFF Spec in XLIFF (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201102/msg00011.html)
- Lucia initiated the translation.

Bryan: paperwork is done.
Lucìa: all in order, and translation will start shortly

=== 4.9. Variants - Wording in Spec
(Christian) (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201103/msg00021.html)

Christian: think all understood the point.
So if we publish errata we need to do that clarification.
Bryan: we tabled errata to work on 2.0
We can solve that there too.

=== 4.10. Sub Committee Reports
- Inline text (Yves)

Nothing new: next meeting for inline codes is next week

=== 5/ Charter
The current charter is here: (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xliff/charter.php)

Nothing new here.
David-F: volunteer for doing a draft.
Would target having a draft by the end of May for TC discussion

=== 6/ New Business

- B: next face-to-face
XLIFF symposium in Poland may be a good choice.
How about Wiesbaden?
DF: will be in Warsaw too.

-end of meeting-

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]