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: TC Call - March-06-2012 - Summary (corrected)

Correction: Alan's first name is Alan, not Michael.

Event Title: XLIFF TC Call
Date: Tuesday, 06 March 2012, 11:00am - 12:00pm ET


=== 1/ Roll call

Present: Yves, Ingo, Bryan, Jung, Rodolfo, Fredrik, Shirley, Paul, Victor, Tom, Steven, Helena, DavidW, Christian, Asanka, Lucìa, Arle, Kevin, Alan, DavidF, 
Regrets: Joachim
Leave of absence: Andrew

=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 21 February 2012 meeting minutes:
Bryan moves to accept the minutes,
Rodolfo seconds.
No objections.

=== 3/ Sub Committee Reports

--- 1. Inline text (Yves)

- New SC members: Alan (Microsoft), Ingo (SDL) and Jung (Oracle)
Our next call is next week.

- Latest SC discussions were about:

Processing expectation for the "editing hint" attributes

Adding inline codes:

- We are heading toward a face-to-face meeting in Dublin on June-13/14.

Rodolfo: draft specification is progressing
People should start reading it.

--- 2. XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC Charter (David)

a. New SotA questionnaire design will be circulated after SC today for 5 business days review
i   Is the new design to be approved at SC or TC level?
ii  Next step is to set up a kavi approval ballot at appropriate level
iii Aim is to start collecting new data set before the end of March

DavidF: first version is published.
Want to start collecting data for second version by the end of March.
We learnt from the first version.
Will aim at 5 business days for TC review of the new questions
Design should be approved at SC level. Any opinions on that?
Rodolfo: should be fine.
DavidF: agree, just wanted to confirm.

-- b. Proposal to form official liaison with MultilingualWeb-LT
i   Arle volunteered to act as XLIFF TC liaison in the said W3C group
ii  David is Co-Chair of the said WG, and was appointed XLIFF TC liaison, unless there are XLIFF TC objections.
iii The other possible candidate would be Yves, who was not present at the SC which addressed this liaison
iv  Can we follow up with kavi TC ballot or do we need more discussion on this?

DavidF: New W3C WG, strong need for a liaison.
David is WG liaison for the TC, we need TC liaison now.
Arle volunteered.
Yves +1 I'm for Arle.

Rodolfo: need more info, maybe link, etc.
DavidF: good point.
WG will be announced tomorrow

Bryan: Having a TC liaison may help in influence our view of the metadata representation.
Rodolfo: a module could be prepare by this WG
DavidF: Think both groups should be aware of what each other are doing.
Some data categories may be part of the core, etc.
Rodolfo: Things like translate flag should be core not from another vocabulary

Arle: Bryan is correct on the advantage. XLIFF will want to make sure that what happens there is compatible with XLIFF. So that influence is also important.
Christian: I agree: we should not have a technical discussion now

Rodolfo: see no need for ITS to be embedded in XLIFF

Arle: Rodolfo, I don't think there would be an objection to having a native XLIFF solution. But the issue would be to coordinate so that if the translate flag is native to XLIFF it is the same as what is used elsewhere.
That's not a technical observation, but rather one of coordination and process.

Christian: You need to watch out for the acknowledging the rules (IP etc.) of the two organizations (W3C and OASIS).

Arle: Christian’s point is important. I'm not sure what the implications are, but we need to be clear about them.

Christian: You may want to check if OASIS and the W3C already have a memorandum that covers the general exchange.

DavidF: W3C management is aware of the XLIFF dependency.

Rodolfo: The dependency takes some liberty from the WG.

Bryan: any other comments?
May a ballot with Yes/No/Abstain

Fredrik: make sense to have more info.
Yves: maybe mailing ballot after some time

DavidF: 5 days for info and 5 days for ballot
Rodolfo: formal ballot should take 7 days.

Helena: If we were to form a liaison relationship, I would like to see
1) objectives of what that relationship will accomplish based on the info presented
2) responsibilities of the liaison person

-- c. SC recommendation: SC was discussing how to best move from feature driven to calendar driven paradigm. Bryan's baseline calculating exercise is good start. The steps SC proposes are as follows:
i   Evaluate the time needed.
ii  Allow newcomers time enough to add their features.
iii Freeze and recalculate
iv  Set calendar driven deadline

DavidF: idea is to take advantage from the momentum we have.
Date-driven schedule would help us to make sure we are done sooner than later.

Christian: Why is the sub-committee tackling this (the switch from feature-driven)?
I am not sure that this kind of discussion is part of the mandate for the SC.
Rodolfo: Agree with Christian
We have a way to know when we are done: when no more features are to be done.

DavidF: SC is "the voice of the customer" and there is a strong call for date-driven progress.
But TC is to be deciding, not SC.

Bryan: group was different when decided on feature-driven work.
Things have changed and we can discuss it again.
No harm is starting this thread again
There are pros-cons for both ways.

DavidF: I have formally proposed it.
We should continue this as an email discussion.

Bryan: please comment clearly in emails

-- d. SC asks for extension of its mandate's scope: (Based on talking to IN! and evaluating other standardization activities such as ULI) SC determined need for explicit XLIFF profiling policy common for both 1.2 and 2.0. The SC started discussion on this. SC asks EITHER to be mandated to work on the policy OR adding this policy as a business item on the TC agenda

DavidF: Seems there is a need for an "XLIFF profile"
Like IN!'s XLIFF:doc. Some things it's not a valid XLIFF profile.
But we never define what an XLIFF profile is.
So we have an official position

Rodolfo: we have already several profiles
DavidF: reference guides

Fredrik: here it's more about having a sub-set or super-set of XLIFF as a profile.
DavidF: yes, it's different from a reference guide
Rodolfo: no need to work on this before 2.0 is done
DavidF: but IN! exists
Fredrik: valid profile is something that is valid XLIFF document
Rodolfo: we don't need to do this.
We need to do technical work

Fredrik: may be a need for a set profile, core + some modules
But that when we have done those things

Christian: In order to really start this whole thing, we first need a definition of "profile".

Bryan: seems an email thread would be best for this discussion.

Rodolfo: defining a profile would be outside the mandate of the SC.
DavidF: agree, that's why I ask for extension.
Formally propose to have that extension
No second.

DavidF: Propose to define profile at TC level
Fredrik: second that.
Abstain (7) > yes (5) > No (1)
Bryan: no decision is the official result

=== 4/ XLIFF 2.0 (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)
a. Overloaded http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201202/msg00009.html
b. String length constraint (should be added to wiki) http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201202/msg00059.html
c. Attributes for HTML at-a-glance feature http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201202/msg00072.html
d. Attributes for translation candidates http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201202/msg00082.html
e. Unified XML schema for XLIFF 2.0 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201202/msg00099.html
Need new owners, or to dismiss the following un-owned proposals:
(T2) Document-centric Localisation http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#XLIFF2.0.2BAC8-Feature.2BAC8-DocumentCentricLocalisation.A.28T2.29Document-centricLocalisation
(T5) XLIFF as a Project Model http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#XLIFF2.0.2BAC8-Feature.2BAC8-ProjectModel.A.28T5.29XLIFFasaProjectModel
(T10) Terminology Markup http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#XLIFF2.0.2BAC8-Feature.2BAC8-TerminologyMarkup.A.28T10.29TerminologyMarkup

--- 1. XLIFF 2.0 Technical work

a. Approved (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#ApprovedFeaturesforXLIFF2.0)

b. Proposed (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#Featuresunderconsideration.28notyetevaluatedbyTC.29)

c. Discarded (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#DiscardedProposedFeatures )

--- 2. XLIFF 2.0 Technical issues (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#TechnicalIssuesforXLIFF2.0)

--- 3. Conformance criteria

=== 5/ Current XLIFF business

--- 1. XLIFF and TM, Glossary, Segmentation Rules (Christian)
    - - Suggested we need to start thread evaluating TAUS survey

--- 2. Using other standards vs. adding XLIFF modules
(Arle, David W., Yves, Helena, . . .)


=== 6/ New Business 

Any new business?

Rodolfo: Too much time spend on SC report.
Ask that only one SC report per meeting (once per month)

Also maybe we should have TC call every week.

Christian: Any update on XLIFF at the LocWorld conference in Paris?

Bryan: There are 3 proposed features without owner.
Please volunteer for them.

- adjourn

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