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 - Event "XLIFF TC Conference Call" added

Corrected Rahzeb’s name.






Meeting minutes:


Present: Victor Amaya, Helena Chapman, Rahzeb Choudhury, Tom Comerford, Fredrik Estreen, David Filip, Christian Lieske, Arle Lommel, Andrew Pimlot, Rodolfo Raya, Jung Woo Ryoo, Yves Savourel, Bryan Schnabel, Joachim Schurig.

Regrets: None


Bryan welcomes new members and asked them to introduce themselves. Razheb works at TAUS and hopes to contribute to the TC. Jung is an Engineer at Oracle, working with Victor.


Bryan proposes to accept minutes from previous meeting. Rodolfo seconds. No objections, minutes approved.


Yves indicates that Inline SC has not met since last meeting and there is an ongoing ballot regarding the type of inline elements that will be used.


David also indicates that the SC has not met since last TC meeting. Lucia’s survey was closed before Christmas but there is no report yet, we need to wait for Lucia.


Bryan described the current workflow we follow for XLIFF 2.0. We track new features in the wiki and via email discussions.


Yves described the situation regarding uniqueness of attribute names. Rodolfo mentions that it would be easier to have different names when content differs. Bryan prefers having meaningful names, even if that affects documentation and the schema. Fredrik prefers reusing the name. David remembered that Helena prefers unique names; he also supports that. Joachim described the consequences for documentation. Arle also prefers meaningful names. Andrew says either way is the same for him. Tom is in favor of reusing names. Christian says that names don't need to be unique/distinct. A roll call ballot was conducted and majority supports the idea of reusing names.


Rodolfo mentioned that he added an item for glossaries in the wiki. Fredrik likes it. Bryan likes the idea of having glossaries in header and unit level. Fredrik would like the ability to have multilingual files. Helena wants to keep implementation as simple as possible. Joachim also prefers the possibility to have multilingual glossaries at the header added at extraction time. Christian thinks that the glossary topic is a big one. We need to speak about a bunch of things. I would prefer to work on other XLIFF topics first.


David moved to vote on moving the glossary feature to the list of approved features for XLIFF 2.0 . Bryan seconded and a ballot was conducted. Motion passed and the glossary feature will be moved to section 1.


Christian has these concerns on the glossary feature:

1. Why establish yet another format (and not sticking to for example TBX)?

2. Why prefer one format over another? Why not say “You can use any format” (this is the status quo)?

3. State of the format. I am lacking for example:

a. Meta data for intellectual property

b. Identifiers on both the entry-/concept-level and the term-level

c. Markup within definitions


Meeting adjourned.


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