[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] XLIFF TC teleconference - Summary
XLIFF TC Call
Date: Tuesday, 07 February 2012, 11:00am - 12:00pm ET
=== 1/ Roll call
Present: Yves, Rodolfo, Ingo, Bryan, Tom, Jung, Lucìa, Steven, Shirley, Helena, Victor, Fredrik, DavidW, Asanka, Joachim, DavidF, Christian, , Andrew
You can check here: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/attendance.php
=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 17 January 2012 meeting minutes:
Bryan moves to approve, Rodolfo seconds.
=== 3/ Sub Committee Reports
--- 1. Inline text (Yves)
No new SC meeting since TC meeting. Next SC meeting is next week.
Yves was to ask a question about plural form to TC.
-> Nothing special for this use case.
Discussed inline codes and segmentation
-> Any input from people working on SRX at ULI?
Christian: question about plural form and SRX.
Rodolfo: SRX is format independent, so can have relationship with format info.
Fredrik: even with regex?
Rodolfo: you could but that rule would be not format independent.
Fredrik: so you need to standardize extracted codes.
Rodolfo: need special rules for each format.
Fredrik: info about the tag, but no info about what the tag is
Bryan: is this related to topic 5.2?
Rodolfo: probably not, srx and xliff and independent
Proposed at some point to have rules in xliff
Christian: question was should we provide input to ULI.
Could be relationship between srx and xliff.
e.g to identify segmenter engine.
Bryan: as an interoperability aid.
Helena: ULI is looking at the behavior rather than SRX itself
Rodolfo: using the same rules may get different result by format because of different markup
Helena: no speaking about forced-breaks, but at the linguistic level
Rodolfo: how to relate that to xliff?
Helena: by knowing the type of rule used
Rodolfo: so just metadata?
Helena: yes, a reference to another processing point
Yves: will get that back to the SC.
--- 2. XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC Charter (David)
DavidF: Finalizing state-of-the-art tools
Also setting up a call with Interoperability Now!*
Was last Wednesday, minutes to come soon on XLIFF:doc.
Asanka working on tool to evaluate xliff tools. Could be used for XLIFF:doc.
Bryan: IN also volunteer to take a deep look into 2.0.
And asked TC do the same for XLIFF:doc
DavidF: I, Yves and Christian already looked deeply into XLIFF:doc
IN need a member in the TC.
Rodolfo: Peter Reynold is member of IN
DavidF: yes, but Peter is not active as Kilgray member.
Helena: IN needs to decide on a spoke-person.
If IN is interested they should be in the TC.
Bryan: understood that it was too late to influence XLIFF 2.0
Tried to make clear that was not the case.
DavidF: Micah is interested, but Medtronics is not ok to join OASIS for IPR reasons.
Rodolfo: Micah could possibly join as individual
DavidF: Paul Leahy will speak on the joint GALA/OASIS webinar re XLIFF business case.
Feb-14 is the date.
=== 4/ XLIFF 2.0 (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)
a. To extend or not to extend http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201111/msg00082.html
Rodolfo: Arle said no extension needed for the game variables.
Bryan: was more than that use case. The question: extensions ok or not?
Many issue with extensibility. Some place should not have extensions.
Should wait until we have 2.0 more complete to see if extensions are ok in some places.
Maybe ok in some other places.
Fredrik: agree. But forbidden it doesn't present people to have some.
Bryan: conformance issue then.
Maybe this topic can be tabled for later. E.g. offer as a yes/no by item in the wiki, like core/not core.
Rodolfo: feature could simply be proposed as a module.
Maybe don't drop this topic, but move it down.
Fredrik: agree: need to address it, but at the end.
DavidF: agree with revisiting this later.
c. Uniqueness of language pair http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201201/msg00008.html
Rodolfo: needs to be resolved to continue.
We were going to vote for bilingual or not.
Bryan: Paul had some input on this. Maybe we should wait for him.
DavidF: champion for this would be WordBee.
But IBM, Oracle maybe interested in this.
Victor: we (Oracle) are fine with bilingual
David: if enterprise are ok with bilingual then don't see other use cases.
Bryan: would see multi-lingual as useful, but don't have a big interest to championing.
Roll call vote would be fine then.
Christian: alternative: maybe the document could provide that information (bi vs multi)
Rodolfo: issue would be the structure (e.g. multiple targets?)
Christian: concept of bi/multi not really defined
Shirley: clean cut would be better otherwise multi-lingual files may be supported or not depending on tools
Bryan: if abstains votes are strong it would indicate we need to revisit this.
Rodolfo: Should the XLIFF document be bilingual only?
Abstains=3, bilingual=10, multi-lingual=0
Victor: when do we get eligibility?
Rodolfo: after 3 of 5 meetings
Victor: was present at least 3 times. Didn't miss any meeting yet.
Rodolfo: will try to update the roster
DavidF: all please make sure to check that you are recorded as attending.
Fredrik: You can check here: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/attendance.php
=== 6/ New Business
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org