RE: [xliff] XLIFF TC - Monday, 17 September 2012 - Summary (corrected)

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Correction: Uwe was also in the call.


-----Original Message-----
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:05 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] XLIFF TC - Monday, 17 September 2012 - Summary

XLIFF TC - Monday, 17 September 2012 - Summary

Please join my meeting.
 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/905529225


=== 1/ Roll call

Present: Klemens, Bryan, Rodolfo, Asanka, Fredrik, Tom, Michael, Shirley, Victor, Steven, Christian, Steven, Joachim, Helena, DavidF
Regrets: Jungwoo


=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 04 September 2012 meeting minutes:

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201209/msg00004.html

Bryan moves to accept 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

Fredrik: we can move F34 to 'approved' section.
Rodolfo: yes
.. no need to approve the actual text

Fredrik: propose to move F34 to 'approved' section
Bryan: second this.
Ballot: passed, 8 yes, 1 abstain)

ACTION ITEM: Rodolfo to move the item.


Translation candidates (Y22)
Yves: ACTION ITEM: look at the item and report if done or not

Fredrik: linked to use of core/module (re-using the inline markup there)

Rodolfo: back to Bidi support:
.. is the proposal complete?
Fredrik: Yes

Bryan: Y8, Translation state
.. still need to post a proposal for
Yves: moves to move the item to 'accepted' section
Rodolfo: seconds this
Ballot: passed 9 yes, 1 abstain

ACTION ITEM: Yves or Rodolfo to move the item


Steven: Resource inheritance: no need to be in core, no module planed Plural entries: no need to support them in core
Rodolfo: move to third section?
Steven: Yves

a. Processing requirements for extensions (Yves) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201209/msg00006.html<file://localhost/archives/xliff/201209/msg00006.html

b. Extensions and modules (Rodolfo)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201209/msg00016.html<file://localhost/archives/xliff/201209/msg00016.html

c. (S6) Resource Inheritance (Steven)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201209/msg00019.html<file://localhost/archives/xliff/201209/msg00019.html

d. (S24) Representation of plural entries (Steven) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201209/msg00020.html<file://localhost/archives/xliff/201209/msg00020.html

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

Rodolfo: if modules are in spec we have to re-approved the spec each time.
.. if module are in committee notes we can update them separated .. for now all is in one package .. if we separate the modules we have to vote separately.
.. for first round I would say we vote one package

DavidF: modules are not non-normative
So can they be in a Note?
Rodolfo: I meant not part of the core.
DavidF: could add the modules in later versions .. maybe the important one ready can be done with the core, but wouldn't put them in a Note
Fredrik: maybe changing any deliverable changes the version, so you have to re-vote
Rodolfo: yes
DavidF: actually this is part of the change: non-material changes (like comma, typos etc.) don't need re-voting.
Rodolfo: but it's a new version (header change)
DavidF: yes, but the approval does not need to go through the all process
Rodolfo: most problematic part of the process is the publishing
Bryan: we need to follows the rigeur OASIS
Rodolfo: Example of type in meta should be defined separately
Fredrik: we should have a review of the core/modules to avoid un-foreseen changes

Bryan: reminder to all "owners" to the section 2 features: look at them and decide what to do.


--- 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<file://localhost/archives/xliff/201209/msg00001.html

Here’s the current charter
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xliff/charter.php

Rodolfo: go through the changes.
.. no committements to conformance tests .. conformance clauses go in the spec, I talk about conformance test suite
DavidF: changed only reference to reference guides.
.. not sure about dropping conformance tests

Rodolfo: validation tool is done outside of the OASIS deliverable (update to XLIFF Checker)
Bryan: what outside of OASIS means?
Rodolfo: not distributed by OASIS
DavidF: reference implementations are obviously outside, but TC should provide testing tools .. scope can be discussed .. we know validating schema is not enough
Rodolfo: same as XLIFF 1.2, tool exists but not part of the OASIS deliverables
Bryan: so the question is do we want a conformance test suite or not?
Rodolfo: you are volunteering to do the programming?
DavidF: part of the 1.2 issue is about testing conformance
Klemens: how conformance would work?
Fredrik: only way compare a before/after for a prescribe set of operations .. valuable for sure.
.. should it be part of the deliverables, not sure
Bryan: should/can we have a ballot on this?
Rodolfo: warning, if we include this in charter we can't release 2.0 before it's done.
.. we need commitements
Klemens: as long as there are no definition of the conformance we can't check.
Rodolfo: yes there are no proposal for this.
DavidF: Fredrik said what should be done.
.. agree with that
Klemens: could you give example?
Fredrik: example, how to handle inline codes .. translation state, etc.
.. we do have some processing requirements
Shirley: yes, even for place where tool should not modify things.
Fredrik: yes
Christian: ..I am wondering if we do not need to set a duration for the validity of the charter.
.. Although, I wonder if we need an explicit statement about IPR. That's what I see in other new OASIS TCs.
Bryan: let's think about it.
DavidF: mandatory in W3C, not sure about OASIS


=== 4/ Sub Committee Reports

--- 1. Inline text (Yves)

Yves: Few attendees, working on type.
Probably will have very stable proposal for Symposium


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

David: For symposium:
There is a slot for "feature owners". Please contact me for this.
That's a way to get feedback for a specific feature Slow on registration so far.
Make sure to spread the word for the Symposium Meeting today.


=== 5/ Current XLIFF business

None.


=== 6/ New Business

None.

Adjourned.




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org