RE: [xliff] Re: [xliff-comment] Next steps regarding your very useful XLIFF 2.0 Public Review comments

["Schnabel, Bryan S" <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com>]

Jörg,

I'm glad we're heading in the right direction, and I hope the resolution of your open comments continue to please you.

Chet, thanks for the very useful explanation of OASIS policy. I would just echo this sentiment, and add that the TC has explicitly agreed upon the need to do our very best to close with each commenter (in fact Jörg, as you know, several TC members are also active in W3C standards). We will strive for "official" acceptance where possible. And in case where there are conflicts between commenters or contradictions between features, as Chet said, we will be as transparent as possible, and clearly document the cases. You can see we've done this regarding one of your comments on the wiki. You recommended a processing requirement for preserving XML processing instructions and another commenter recommended a contradictory requirement. So the TC voted and the results were documented in the wiki.

I thank you once again, and reiterate our continued transparency and desire to continue our partnership with the XLIFF community.

Thanks,

Bryan
________________________________
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] on behalf of Chet Ensign [chet.ensign@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 6:29 AM
To: joerg@bioloom.de
Cc: Schnabel, Bryan S; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] Re: [xliff-comment] Next steps regarding your very useful XLIFF 2.0 Public Review comments

Hi Jörg,

I'm Chet Ensign, the director of standards development at OASIS. I see your question to Bryan and thought I would jump in with the answer.

You asked: "How is the OASIS process with resolving comments, e.g. do you need my "official" acceptance of the proposed solution(s), which would be similar to the W3C process?"

At OASIS, we ensure that there is transparency and visibility into the work of Technical Committees so that stakeholders in the broader marketplace can make their own decisions about the quality of the work. It is up to each Technical Committee to decide whether and how to act on comments received. TCs are required to acknowledge comments received, to track them along with their decision on how to resolve them, and to post these comment resolution logs at specific stages of the process so that those providing comments can see what the TC chose to do. There is no requirement that a TC obtain acceptance of a proposed solution.

You can find this explained in more detail in "Handling the comments received during a public review" (https://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin/handling-the-comments-received-during-a-public-review). Of course, TCs like XLIFF that care about the acceptance and adoption of their work go beyond this to engage with those who take the time to provide thoughtful feedback and seek the best possible solution.

Thanks for providing your input to the XLIFF & let me know if you have any questions on this. I'm happy to go into more detail.

Best regards,

/chet



On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de<mailto:joerg@bioloom.de>> wrote:
Hi Bryan,

Thanks a lot for your feedback. This looks very good indeed, and I'm looking forward to the revised version of the specification. And, of course, some of my comments are still open...

Regarding the Glossary module it will be also my pleasure to further discuss remaining issues with Ryan.

One question: How is the OASIS process with resolving comments, e.g. do you need my "official" acceptance of the proposed solution(s), which would be similar to the W3C process?

Thanks, and all the best,

Jörg

On July 01, 2013 at 23:30 (CEST), Schnabel, Bryan S wrote:
Jörg,

On behalf of the TC, I want to again thank you for the very useful
comments. As you know, we are tracking them here on our wiki
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker

In an effort to not fill your inbox with individual replies, I hope you
don’t mind that I will reply to them, but comment number, in this single
email.

Several were simply accepted at face value, and will be implemented (as
documented on the wiki). Also, you and Yves have continued your
discussions publically on the comment list.

I will address the remainder here.

csprd01 015 - Processing Requirements for XML PIs: This was also called
to our attention in comment 013. We had an electronic ballot
(https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=2432 ), and voted
to say the Processing Instructions SHOULD be preserved.

csprd01 018 - Structure and Structural Elements: Glossary module: This
is also covered in comment 024. We are very close to resolving this. We
discussed this at the Face to Face meeting in London and came to
consensus
(https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201306/msg00009.html), We
then held a ballot
(https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/ballot.php?id=2438)
and voted to remove Glossary from File. In summary: A] make Glossary
Module more expressive: 1) make <glossentry> extensible by both elements
and attributes, 2) make children extensible by attributes, 3) Introduce
id to be able to reference back from <mrk type="term">; B] Remove
<glossary> from <file>

Ryan King is the owner of this topic and will be happy to follow up if
you have further questions.

csprd01 025 - Format Style Module: I am grateful for this good advice. I
will add a robust, more sophisticated example that supports images.

csprd01 026 - Metadata Module: This is also tied to comment 048. I think
it is very good advice. I will add the example you suggest.

Prior to the second public review I will send you a link to the improved
specification that incorporated the comments you sent, and I will ask
for your opinion of the resolution of your comments.

Thank you,

Bryan


--
This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC.

In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
before posting.

Subscribe: xliff-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:xliff-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org>
Unsubscribe: xliff-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:xliff-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org>
List help: xliff-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:xliff-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org>
List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/
Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
Committee: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xliff
Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/




--

/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