[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Teleconference May-1-2012 - Summary
XLIFF TC Call - Summary Date: Tuesday, 01 May 2012 === 1/ Roll call Present: Yves, Bryan, Tom, Victor, Lucìa, Ingo, Asanka, Fredrik, Jung, DavidW, DavidF, Helena, Steven, Alan, Uwe Regrets: Christian, Arle === 2/ Approve Tuesday, 17 April 2012 meeting minutes: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201204/msg00037.html Bryan moves to approve the minutes Tom seconds No objections === 3/ XLIFF 2.0 (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking --- 1. Features proposed and seconded between meetings via mailing list, and features mentioned a. Proposed and seconded: (B25) Preserve metadata without using extensibility" http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#XLIFF2.0.2BAC8-Feature.2BAC8-reserveXMLattributeormetadatawithoutextensibility.A.28B25.29Preservemetadatawithoutusingextensibility - Extensibility sub thread (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201203/msg00077.html - Implementing extensions sub thread (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201203/msg00078.html Bryan: seems we can vote on this Bryan: the summary: community says extensibility in 1.2 led to conformance issues Some tools use extensions to implement existing features One thought would be to make conformance rules tighter and continue to allow custom namespace Other: metaHolder would make using extensions more difficult and therefore less miss-used Fredrik: need to remove the example with alt text Alan: should have some type of pre-define types of meta data Fredrik: should we avoid to put anything in metaHold If we have features we want to have in common it should be in an XLIFF module Alan: question is how far we need to go with metaHolder Bryan: we would do our best to define feature in core and modules And metaHolder would be for things we don't have thought about Fredrik: using metaHolder is not easier than defining a module Steven: can't use XML validation in metaHolder Alan: could still use custom namespaces Bryan: metaHolder for metadata not supported in XLIFF Fredrik: will we have predefined type? Bryan: think not. Those would be in modules DavidF: can't think of it as isolated. Reminds me a a garbage can. We're not sure if we'll need it. We don't know yet what will be in core and modules Need to define our approach to conformance If metaHolder doesn't exclude use of custom namespace, then maybe useful, but not sure if we'll need it. Bryan: "miscellaneous" rather than garbage can Bryan: could wait to have a concrete implementation of this A corollary to this vote would be "yes/no to custom namespace" DavidF: any example makes it concrete, something we could implement as a module Bryan: we will never anticipate all what user will need. So metaHolder could become a way to evolve XLIFF As long as it's not used for existing features Steven: could we define it as something that is not in the specification Ingo: but we could have conflict if things are defined afterward Steven: but it's the same regardless of the way we implement it Bryan: conformance would use 'must' not be used in core/modules Brayn: tricky topic, but needed. Let's conduct the ballot Proposed Ballot: " B: Propose we support extensibility with XML elements, and not custom namespaces: Propose we vote on 2.16, "Preserve metadata without using extensibility/custom namespaces" http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/Feature/Preserve%20XML%20attribute%20or%20metadata%20without%20extensibility Any last thoughts? Fredrik: custom namespace issue is also about what data you can put in custom namespace DavidF: important think is the mechanism should not implement existing features of XLIFF Fredrik: custom namespaces may have problem if deleted Yves: custom namespace is very similar to module Bryan/Fredrik: not really Discussion about whether pros/cons of custom namespaces vs metaHolder <sorry: can't discuss and minute at the same time...> Bryan: maybe not yet ready for a ballot. Victor: more examples could help maybe Steven: we could vote on "use metaHolder for extensibility, yes or no" Fredrik: having both metaHolder and custom namespace would be bad. Bryan: could be a follow-on ballot Possible ballot: yes=use metaHolder, no=not use metaHolder, abstain=need more discussion not a vote on using custom namespace metaHolder here means metadata defined by users (rather than XLIFF) DavidF: maybe the question is "do we want to exclude extensibility with custom NS?" Then vote on metaHolder. metaHolder maybe a bit like a "private use" Yves: The first question is "Should we allow user/custom metadata in XLIFF?". Then, if yes, we can vote on how to implement that. Bryan: Last word on this for today. Need to continue the discussion on the mailing list === 4/ Sub Committee Reports --- 1. Inline text (Yves) Minutes of last meeting are here: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-inline/201204/msg00004.html We are working on editing permission Fredrik provided a good summary document for this: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-inline/201204/msg00007/xliff_edit_pe.pdf We are also looking at bi-directionality. Fredrik also provided a good starting point for this: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-inline/201204/msg00009.html Note to SC members: don' forget to review those and comment as needed. === 6/ New Business Any new business? None -adjourned
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]