XLIFF TC Call - Summary - Aug-07-2012

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

XLIFF TC Call
Date: Tuesday, 07 August 2012, 11:00am - 12:00pm ET
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/905529225


=== 1/ Roll call

Present: Alan, Yves, Rodolfo, Ingo, Shirley, Bryan, Jungwoo, Tom, Kevin, Helena, Michael, 
Regrets: Christian, Klemens, Asanka


=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 17 July 2012 meeting minutes:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201207/msg00034.html

Bryan moves to accept the minutes
Rodolfo seconds
No objections


=== 3/ XLIFF 2.0 (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)

--- 1. Features proposed/discussed on the mailing list


g. Proposed (by Yves) extension points https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201207/msg00024.html

No extension points for attribute in inline element for now.
Bryan: some representation guides I think recommend to use extensions there.
Rodolfo: we can add the point in the schema and specification
Bryan: second R to add the information in the schema/spec.
Alan: for element any extension in source and target?
Rodolfo: no we have no extension inside the content
Alan: will look at our use cases (for example metaholder needed there)
Rodolfo: why not at segment level?
Alan: possible, but requires extra processing
Rodolfo: allowing extension inside content can cause interoperability issue
Bryan: maybe need to look at the purpose of extensions.
..For not anticipated features
..Or case of use of other vocabularies (like ITS).
..Maybe we need to be more liberal for location of the points
Rodolfo: better to propose the feature to the TC so it becomes part of the standard
Bryan: Right. Is extensions different from what I said?
Rodolfo: more or less as you defined it.
..any other opposition to implement the changes?
..would the current proposal ok Alan?
Alan: need to keep things open.
Rodolfo: should we then allow extension everywhere?
David: content is special, adding extensions makes things more difficult
..so having extensions there add complexity
..should propose the needed feature to the TC
..adding features inside content would be through modules. So, not close, just a bit more difficult to add.
..supports no extensions in content
..if something is missing in content, it should be proposed
Rodolfo: none of the modules we have so far modifies content
Bryan: processing expectations: this is key to the discussion
..maybe we can start with the proposed list and keep the discussion on the extension in content
Alan: yes, we can start with that, and explore options.
Bryan: agreement then: Rodolfo to update the schema/spec.

ACTION ITEM: Rodolfo to update the schema/spec. for extension point

FS attribute:

Rodolfo: BTW, need also info about the 'fs' attribute
Bryan: yes. will work on this.
Rodolfo: original idea was to add it to all elements
Bryan: see https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/Feature/Add%20optional%20format%20attribute%20for%20quick%20at-a-glance%20review
Rodolfo: need agreement before I make a global change (including in inline element)
Bryan: we explicitly said 'fs' must not be used for other application than the described one
Yves: adding in inline should be ok
Rodolfo: sub-set of elements is limited, so re-purposing the value would be difficult
Bryan: Fredrik proposed to exclude non-formatting elements (like scripts)
Rodolfo: values should be just the element name and required values
..but we need more than that, like for FONT, etc.
Bryan: good point
Rodolfo: notion of complementary attribute, what do we do about that?
Bryan: idea was to possibly have a second attribute to hold addition values
..not sure it was a requirement
..like Rodolfo idea to limit list to stand-alone elements (B, etc.)
..So I need to review the proposal

ACTION ITEM: Bryan to modify the fs proposal



=== 4/ Sub Committee Reports

--- 1. Inline text (Yves)

Yves: Nothing new to report since last meeting.
..Next SC call is next week.
..Will work on adding bidi attribute to structural item later


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

David: Ballot on mandate
..mandate has been extended. Will be able to prepare symposium
..And work on liaisons

About the symposium:
Good momentum, but a bit short on presentation proposal
So maybe should see the event as a working event 
Would like to have TC members as 'feature owner'
For example for the inline markup, for example from Yves or Fredrik
Same for other features, like metaholder, etc.
Most critical point is to have a strong program.
Submit papers or push others to do so.

Bryan: what about a panel on the 2.0 state?
David: sure, but would like to see the feature-owners to take ownership of their work and present it.
..maybe what worked fine in the 1st symposium doesn't work as much now

Bryan: note that we have a face-to-face meeting proposed on the 15th (Monday)
Please people tell me if you could attend.
David: we should have two rooms available (main and for break-out sessions)
Bryan: what about dialing capabilities?
David: we should be able to do a GTM sessions as needed


=== 5/ Current XLIFF business

1. Comment list entry: Mailing List for TIPP Implementers https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/201207/msg00000.html


=== 6/ New Business

Bryan: any new business?
Rodolfo: we need to work on the Charter
..still talks about 1.0, etc.
..needs to be updated.
..then a long voting process. This is needed before 2.0 is proposed.
Bryan: good point.

-adjourned