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: XLIFF TC Call - Sep-4-2012 - Summary

Tuesday, 04 September 2012 - XLIFF TC Call - Summary

=== 1/ Roll call

Present: DavidF, Yves, Bryan, Asanka, Victor, Rodolfo, Fredrik, Klemens, Helena, Tom, Uwe, Jungwoo, DavidW
Regrets: Christian

=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 21 August 2012 meeting minutes:


Bryan moves to approve the minutes.
Fredrik seconds
No objections

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

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

a. Proposal for a <group> element (Yves) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201208/msg00017.html

Rodolfo: need to change the name, more for a hierarchy. <level> for example.
Yves: why not.
Rodolfo: group should have at least 2 children
Bryan: hierarchy is grouping calling it level goes too much into the other direction.
DavidF: doesn't matter, question is: is it different from 1.2?
Helena: How about <section>?
Bryan: <section> better than <level>
Fredrik: same for me.
Victor: in 1.2 group was used to merge translation
DavidF: was an overload
Rodolfo: just want to avoid confusion with previous group
Many new names already (unit, ignorable, etc.)
Victor: point is we have documentation about <group> so we would need to update this
Rodolfo: yes, implementation changes
Victor: overhead for implementers
Rodolfo: I was using group to merge segments. It's gone now.
Bryan: maybe a simple roll call: group/section?
DavidF: we should address the semantics
Rodolfo: names have been changed for other features
DavidF: should rename only when the change is major to avoid alienate implementer.
Rodolfo: ready to implement in schema, but semantics is different
Victor: Some changes impact authoring teams others localization teams
Rodolfo: it's not just the name
Victor: it depends: bare-bone implementation may be close to 1.2
Rodolfo: 2.0 is very different
Victor: some change affect many.
Jungwoo: for me group is just used to group trans-unit. Chanmging name is just more confusing for us.
Fredrik: either ways is fine for me. All tools will need to adapt to new format.
So avoiding name change to avoid change implementation is not goint to work
Klemens: What is the exact semantics?
Yves: "Provides a way to organize units into a structured hierarchy".
Klemens: then group is ok for me. Section would have a different semantics
Jungwoo: section sounds very generic to me too.
Rodolfo: let's do a quick count for the name (Bryan seconds)
"preserve the name 'group' or not?"
-> result: <group> 7 for, 2 abstained, 2 for change

b. Enhanced Commenting Support (simpleNote) (Yves) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201208/msg00026.html

Rodolfo: rename it to <note>? No objection.
Yves: and add the optional id attribute.
Fredrik: scope for id?
Yves: unit
Klemens: why not date as well?
Rodolfo: would need to implement a module 'faces'

c. BIDI (Yves) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201208/msg00027.html
ACTION ITEM: Yves to add dir attribute for <data>

d. Whitespace handling in (Yves) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201208/msg00028.html

Rodolfo: Yves tried fixed='preserved' but run into schema error
Will look at it.

e. Specification document and modules (Yves) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201208/msg00029.html

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

3. Conformance criteria

4. Charter: Need to bring up to date to reflect XLIFF 2.0
David's proposal https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201209/msg00001.html

Here’s the current charter

David proosed updated charter.
Attended discussion on changing charter process for OASIS.
Clarification must not introduce major changes and not expand the scope.
Think all changes are simple one.
Added creation of a test suite.

Rodolfo: would talk about validation test suite rather than conformance test suite
We don't have a conformance clause yet
And can't verify conformance of the tools

DavidF: idea is the tools must perform transformation and output should be valid.
Rodolfo: it won't work. For example can't check renderer for web browsers.
DavidF: just want to be sure we say that having schema validation is not enough.
Rodolfo: yes, but that's not a conformance test suite
Also a part is added about writing guidelines
DavidF: refers to representation guides we have for 1.2
Rodolfo: not sure this is in scope. Or maybe using 'MAY'
Fredrik: only two comments:
a) both UK and US English are used
b) "and revising the XLIFF spec to 1.2 version to support document based content segmentation and alignment requirements" is not very readable. Would re-arrange it.
Rodolfo: also we don't have anyone talking about a guide for DITA or HTML5
DavidF: we can use 'MAY' for this.
Rodolfo: policy for publishing as change. Guides are now committee Notes don't need to be in charter
DavidF: yes, not normative, but better if we allow them is charter
Rodolfo: using 'MAY' then
Bryan: all need to review the document and post feedback.

=== 4/ Sub Committee Reports

--- 1. Inline text (Yves)

Nothing to report since last TC call (next call for the SC is next week).
Note: Fredrik added bidi feature in wiki.
Would encourage all to look at the bidi support.
Fredrik: the bidi proposal has been out for long now. 
Also added 'length' feature is in the wiki now. Working on the proposal now.

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

DavidF: papers for Seattle have been reviewed. All have been accepted (one with question mark, not sure if we have buy-in from the feature owners for this. Depends on the presence of the owners)
Not decided: when each talk will be presented (symposium or federated day)

Bryan: still need to work logistics for the face-to-face.
SC promotion/liaison will discuss that.

=== 5/ Current XLIFF business

- Bryan: had talk about section 2 of the wiki page for feature without momentum.
We can move them to section 3, since there is no 'prison term'
Easy to move it back to section 2 when you have resource

=== 6/ New Business


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