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] Groups - XLIFF TC Call Sep-6-2011 - Summary

Arle,  thanks for the comment about BCP47 vs RFC 4646, that was concerning to me as well.

We were able to discuss some of these internally, and I would like to take ownership of:
 2.6 Resource Inheritance and
 2.25 Representation of Plural Entities.  

Should I edit the Wiki myself for these?


Inactive hide details for Yves Savourel ---09/06/2011 09:12:32 AM---XLIFF TC Call - Summary Date:  Tuesday, 06 September 2011Yves Savourel ---09/06/2011 09:12:32 AM---XLIFF TC Call - Summary Date:  Tuesday, 06 September 2011

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
To: <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 09/06/2011 09:12 AM
Subject: RE: [xliff] Groups - XLIFF TC Call Sep-6-2011 - Summary

XLIFF TC Call - Summary

Date:  Tuesday, 06 September 2011
Time:  11:00am - 12:00pm ET

=== 1/ Roll call

Present: Yves, Arle, Rodolfo, Peter, David-W, Bryan, Andrew, Tom, Steven, David-F, Shirley, Helena, Christian, Lucia

=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 16 August 2011 meeting minutes:

Bryan moves to approve the minutes.
Andrew seconds
No objections.

=== 3/ Sub Committee Reports

--- 3.1/ Inline text (Yves)

Next meeting is next week.
Email discussion on several topics.
We are trying to go through our requirements list:

Rodolfo: Early draft element were added to the draft schema.

--- 3.2/ - XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC Charter

SC met on 16th.
Not quite sure about its official status.
Issue with setup of the SC: default was to join as observer.
David-F made them voting members. (workaround suggested by Chet Ensign)

Rodolfo/Arle: can enter as member, then get voting rights after.
Voting rights when there at first official meeting, then new members have to participate twice to get voting rights.

=== 4/ Charter Draft (David F.)

Bryan: TC endorsed the idea of a 'working charter'.
We have a few comments to dispose of.

a. Helena's comment (about tools maker)

David-F: version 0.3 should have re-worded definition.
Rodolfo: please upload the doc in Kavi, or attached the doc. (for history tracking)

b. David's Feature Approval Procedure proposal

Discussion of 'Feature approval procedure'
(partially tracked here)

Rodolfo: following strict procedure would slow thing down.
David-F: idea to have a place where the feature is described.
Rodolfo: about resources: owner should not be necessarily the one providing the resource
David-F: owner should just make sure there is resource
Bryan: what is the accepted feature is stalled?
David-F: we should have a procedure for this (move back to 2 or 3)
Discarded features could be set for next version.
Yves: why only owner can pop back 33 and why 4 months?
Rodolfo: there should be no block
Bryan: we could change owners then.
Rodolfo: no need for bumper period when in #3
Arle: I agree with Rodolfo. We can choose to put things on the table or not. I can see things reemerging in light of other developments.
E.g. Let's say that we decide not to work on something, but then a month later something else changes that makes that relevant again, I see no reason why we should *have* to wait on it.
Christian: is it formalization for proposing or approving?
Bryan: no procedure to add to #2. Which should be fine.
Discussion is mostly about #3.
Bryan: super-majority to move from #3 maybe.
Arle: Bryan's proposal sounds quite reasonable to me. The issue is that there be consensus to make the change. Any time will be arbitrary. But consensus will reflect the wisdom of the committee.
Rodolfo: as long as we can move features easily it's fine.
Yves: why do we need #3?
Bryan: #3 is good place to keep things we thoughts were not doable for now (for whatever reason)
So super-majority or not for popping back a 33 feature?
Yves/Rodolfo/Arle: should be as easy to pop from #3 than to push into it.
David-F: will prepare new version for next time.
But feel strongly that no obstacle for #3 to get back to #2 is bad. Will propose alternative.

c. Shall we move this to Promotion and Liaison SC?
Bryan: not yet
Rodolfo: should not because it's about tech work.
David-F: maybe we can move it when the WC will be done for the tech part

=== 5/ XLIFF 2.0 (

Shirley/Rodolfo will split the 2.4 (Shirley will take permission, Rodolfo validation)
Steven interested by #2.9
Arle: BTW: BCP47 is better for 2.9. Do not use RFC 5446.

=== 6/ Current XLIFF business

--- 6.2/ 2nd Annual XLIFF Symposium in Poland progress (Peter)
(will move this to P & L SC after today's meeting)

Peter: speakers/order of sessions have changed (e.g. Christian can't come).
Program looks interesting. Would be nice to have more TC members.
Microsoft session should be interesting.

Bryan: time to conclude.
This item will move to SC after this meeting.

Peter: symposium should be web cast all day. If possible.
Need you to promote the symposium.

---- Last minute comments:

Christian: feature 2.5: package, how that is related to other efforts?
Rodolfo: could be interesting. Feels to belong to this TC.
Bryan: feel free to continue by email.


To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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