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: Re: [xliff-comment] RE: [xliff] Re: [xliff-comment] Comment on XLIFF 2.0 30 day draft


Hi Bryan, hi Yves - 

I will send 2 responses - first this one to your question Yves. Also, I have changed the xliff-comment@ to xliff@ to move this conversation since conversations are not to be held on a TCs -comment@ list. 

Yves, you asked: 

"The other comment I have (probably for an OASIS officer) is about the extent of the implementations: The text above seems to indicate that a given implementation can implement only some of the conformance clauses. My worry is that we may end up with 3 implementations doing the bare minimum and none implementing large parts of the specification (the modules for example).

That would not bode well for XLIFF 2.0 to move to OASIS Standard." 

This is up to the TC. That is one of the reasons that we require the TC to vote to accept each SoU. Also why we require that the SoU specify which conformance clauses apply - especially important in a situation where the TC has optional as well as required clauses and where an implementor does not implement all clauses. 

So, the TC is not required to accept and use any SoU nor does receiving and accepting 3 conforming SoUs trigger any action. You all can push for and wait for SoUs that you believe indicate a substantial portion of the spec has been proven in code before moving it forward as a Candidate OS. 

/chet



On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Schnabel, Bryan S <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com> wrote:
Hi Chet, David, Yves,

Chet, I wonder if I could get a ruling . . .

I am currently creating versions of my open source XLIFF applications to work with XLIFF 2.0:

xliffRoundTrip Tool http://sourceforge.net/projects/xliffroundtrip/

DITA-XLIFF Roundtrip Plugin for OT http://sourceforge.net/projects/ditaxliff/files/

Drupal XLIFF module https://drupal.org/project/xliff (caveat, I am a contributing developer, not owner of the module, but am active in doing the update)

Each of the above, as Yves characterized, will touch some, but not all modules.

In addition, I'm working on a light-weight editor that (with luck, will indeed exercise all the modules).

Do any of these count?

Also, I might be able to get an OASIS voting member company or two to kick the tires. Does that count as an OASIS member?

Thanks,

Bryan

ps. planting a seed; has OASIS ever thought of translating their Drupal site? I know of a great XLIFF module, and some great translators that have good experience using it.
________________________________
From: Yves Savourel [yves@opentag.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 6:39 AM
To: xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff-comment] RE: [xliff] Re: [xliff-comment] Comment on XLIFF 2.0 30 day draft


Hi David,



> OASIS does have requirement of 2 (2 OASIS members) or 3 (1 OASIS member + 2 external)

> before you move to OASIS standard, we are however moving towards Committee Specification.

> Implementations for the OASIS standard move will be of course discussed

> on the F2F on June 10.



I’m glad to discover there is a requirement for implementations. From past discussions in the TC I thought there were none.



I assume this requirement is the one mentioned in the first paragraph of https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#OASISstandard. It seems to be 3 Statements of Use, at least one of them from a TC member.



A statement of use is defined in the same page and says among other things:



[[

"Statement of Use", with respect to a Committee Specification, is a written statement that a party has successfully used or implemented that specification in accordance with all or some of its conformance clauses specified in Section 2.18, identifying those clauses that apply, and stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations. The Statement of Use must be made to a specific version of the Committee Specification

...

]]



This emphasis Chase’s comment. We still need to have implementations as soon as possible. Before the specification becomes a Committee Specification since we can’t change/fix anything after that.



The other comment I have (probably for an OASIS officer) is about the extent of the implementations: The text above seems to indicate that a given implementation can implement only some of the conformance clauses. My worry is that we may end up with 3 implementations doing the bare minimum and none implementing large parts of the specification (the modules for example).

That would not bode well for XLIFF 2.0 to move to OASIS Standard.



-ys






--

/chet 
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration 
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org

Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 

Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html 

TC Administration information and support is available at http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin

Follow OASIS on:
LinkedIn:    http://linkd.in/OASISopen
Twitter:        http://twitter.com/OASISopen
Facebook:  http://facebook.com/oasis.open


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