[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Groups - Event "XLIFF TC Call" added
=== Roll call
Present: Victor, Helena, Tom, David F., Alan, Kevin, Rodolfo, Jung Woo, Bryan, Joachim, Uwe, David W. and Asanka.
Guests: Klemens Waldhoer
Regrets: Lucía, Christian, Yves and Fredrik
=== Approve Tuesday, 15 May 2012 meeting minutes:
Bryan proposes to accept the minutes, Tom seconds and there are no objections.
=== XLIFF 2.0
Bryan: the progress rate has lowered. Make the specification draft available to improve work speed.
Rodolfo: it’s available in the wiki, at https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/
Bryan: Two ballots, one with clear results and the second ended with a tie.
DavidF: most people voted in favor of supporting elements (<metaHolder> type), some wanted to exclude namespaces. Excluding namespaces would make it difficult for people using other standards.
Rodolfo: end users didn’t like the use of namespaces in XLIFF symposium
Bryan/DavidF: people didn’t like the abuse, not the possibility of having extensibility.
Rodolfo: people didn’t follow guidelines from XLIFF spec and used namespaces for things that already were defined.
Joachim: the problem is in interoperability and the expectation from tools that implement extensions.
Rodolfo: the difference between elements and namespaces is that with elements you know what to expect. With custom namespaces there is no way to know in advance what can be found in the file.
Bryan: with namespaces you may have invalid files if it is not possible to use the custom schema to validate. We need to include something in the conformance clause to have working combination of elements and namespaces.
Joachim: should we allow two ways of doing things? That would be something that people may not like.
Kevin: agrees with Joachim
Joachim: Should we vote for one way or the other?
Bryan/DavidF: there may be use cases for both ways.
Joachim: to avoid ambiguity we may just drop <metaHolder> and use only namespaces.
Helena: We spent half the meeting without resolution. Suggests limiting the time for discussing any particular issue. We should find a tie-breaking process.
Rodolfo: agrees with Helena.
Bryan: introduced the topic in order to discuss a way to solve the tie.
DavidF: We have a positive result: The TC wants extensibility.
Rodolfo: should we have a roll call ballot now?
DavidF: no, we did not indicate that the ballot would happen today. We should do it in next meeting.
Rodolfo: suggests doing an electronic ballot and have the results before next meeting.
Helena: do an electronic ballot with just two options. If there is a tie, do a roll call ballot without discussion on next meeting.
Bryan: seconds Helena’s proposal.
Action: Rodolfo will create the ballot. If there is a tie, there will be a roll call ballot to resolve.
== Combined XML schema
Rodolfo: none objected to the proposal for discarding a combined schema
== Source read only or modifiable?
Rodolfo: most people wants source to be modifiable according to the support expressed to the mailing list exchange.
=== Conformance criteria
== Inline text (Yves)
Yves is not present, no report today.
== XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC Charter (David)
DavidF: SC mandate expires in July. Will suggest extending its mandate in a mail thread. Arle left GALA and is no longer a member of the TC. Lucia is busy with her PhD and DavidF will continue working on the surveys as time permits. Lucia sent the Spanish translation to Rodolfo for review.
=== Current XLIFF business
== New thread on comment list: 'XLIFF 2.0 Core finished?' https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/201205/msg00000.html
Yves and Rodolfo responded to the comments expressing that the core is not finished yet.
=== New business
Rodolfo: Fredrik sent an email to the TC with a proposal for dealing with BiDi text.