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/TAUS next steps

Hi Rahzeb,


Thanks for sharing this. Getting feedback from the XLIFF community is one of the highest priorities for the XLIFF TC. This survey is very useful in that regard. On behalf of the TC, I thank to you and TAUS for taking the initiative. I'm sure we will spend a lot of time considering the valuable information the survey results have unlocked.


Your mention of the next stage is very topical for us as well. I am forwarding this to the XLIFF list. Perhaps members will have some insights for you on your question 1. and 2. (core vs. non-core and key contributors).


As I mentioned earlier. The TC, at this moment, is probably several months away from knowing what features will be core vs. what will be modules. At this stage we are analyzing which is the better course to take to make that determination. Should we begin now to define criteria that measures a feature's core-worthiness? Or should we press on and define all of the features for 2.0, and then afterward categorize them as core or module?


So the direct answer we would give to your question 1.: we have no features that we agree should be in the core, we have a long list of features that are still open for considerations, and we have no list of features that should not be in the core.


I'm sorry if I did not make the "earliness" of that decision clear enough.


We are very happy to continue - and are very grateful to TAUS for all the help.






From: Rahzeb Choudhury [mailto:rahzeb@translationautomation.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 1:08 PM
To: Peter Reynolds; Schnabel, Bryan S; Lieske, Christian; Scott McGrath; Jaap van der Meer; Klemens Waldhör; Yves Savourel; hchapman@US.IBM.COM; Dominic Smyth
Subject: Re: XLIFF/TAUS next steps


Dear All,

I am pleased to say that there are 433 responses to the XLIFF survey. The survey link will be kept open for a couple more days as one large enterprise just informed they intend to respond.

You can see the summary of responses here.

We will draft a short article about the survey and publish on the TAUS site, informing that readers can attend the XLIFF symposium for more detailed insight. This will include analysis by stakeholder types/market segments.

It's a good time to press on with preparations for the next stage of the exercise - a consultation on features that should or should not be in XLIFF core for the 2.0 specification. I am still looking for your feedback on:

1.      The features that the TC agrees should definitely be in the core, what features the TC feels are still open to consideration, and the features the TC feels should not be in the core....(TC in this case means active members of the TC)

2.      A list of people/companies that you see as being key contributors to the consultation

As mentioned, we will try to plan in 1:1 calls with the individuals concerned.

Sometime ago we began to prepare a survey to ask for market feedback to help prioritize the features should be included in XLIFF 2.0. It quickly became apparent that the questionnaire would be too long. You can see the framework here.

I look for your guidance on whether this survey approach could be used for the XLIFF core consultation. Your feedback on (1) above will likely provide the insight needed to understand if such a survey is practical.

I added Helena Chapman to recipients as she is on both the TC and the TAUS standards advisory committee.

Hope you are able to come back before end July on these two requests. It will take a little while to get the consultation in full swing. It would be great to have it wrapped up ahead of the XLIFF symposium, and for you to be able to report on feedback there.



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