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: Groups - Event "XLIFF TC Call" modified

Submitter's message
The meeting did not achieve quorum.
Still the six of us had an interesting discussion walking through the spec. The proposed solutions received informal support in the meeting..
-- Dr. David Filip
Event Title: XLIFF TC Call

Date: Tuesday, 06 August 2013, 11:00am to 12:00pm EDT

Please join my meeting.
Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.

   France: +33 (0) 182 880 780
   Germany: +49 (0) 892 2061 159
   Spain: +34 911 23 0850
   Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 612
   United Kingdom: +44 (0) 203 535 0611
   United States: +1 (773) 945-1031

Access Code: 905-529-225
Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting
Meeting ID: 905-529-225


I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)
  A. Roll call
  B. Approve previous meeting minutes, 16 July 2013 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201307/msg00086.html

II XLIFF 2.0 (0:10 - 0:45)
  A. Actions required to stay on track according to our timeline https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201306/msg00042.html
     1. Readiness for second public review ballot?
     2. Reference Implementations for XLIFF 2.0 [identify by 16 July] (Kevin) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201306/msg00040.html

  B. Public review completed
     1. Comments are tracked on the wiki: review assignments and status
     2. Review progress on comment replies and updates

III XLIFF 2.X? 3.0? (0:45 - 0:50)
    1. Freeze on Feature Tracking wiki? Or queue proposed post 2.0 features there?
    2. Do we have an official path for promoting custom namespace to supported core/module post XLIFF 2.0?

IV Charter (Bryan to update site)

V Sub Committee Report (0:50 - 0:55)

VI Current and New Business (0:55 - )


Atttendance: Victor, Tom, DavidF, Bryan, DavidW, Asanka, 6 members (4 voters)

4 voters out of 13 means a non-quorum working meeting

LoA: Helena, Uwe, Yves

df: We have 13 voters so we need 7 voters to achieve quorum. we have six people in the call; so it’s impossible. let's jump into the spec.

- going quickly through the html version of the spec that was sent via email.

- we managed to make the keywords uppercase;

- comments tracker (wiki): green colour = solutions implemented;

- issue #039: rewrite of the normative language from the point of view of processes, agents etc.; this was decided on the f2f; we also decided to change many of the PRs to constraints.

- we have agreed definitions for processes and agents; also for enriching, extraction, merging and so on;

- we have defined xliff documents; we are using those definitions throughout the spec; mainly in PRs; but also in conformance section;

- we have to add normative references in a separate section; we had to add html5 reference; fix note on datetime references and so on;

- Tom has developed a report for catching occurrences of non-uppercased keywords; this will ensure spec will be of high quality; this is a major effort;

- the tree structure was changed based on one of the public review comments; basically Yves commenting on the tree structure ... and on the last TC we decided that we are going to enforce elements order; it was quite clear consensus; tree is currently not up to date; Tom has developed some automation scripts to make the trees compliant with the current specification and the schemas listings; Tom automates the schema listing.

t: I will have a script to update the tree structure soon.

df: In skeleton there was a minor change based on the public review comments: there were duplicate mechanisms ... to reference to external skeleton; now the only mechanism is on the skeleton element. the skeleton element must be empty if the reference to external skeleton element is used;

- group is recursive; at least one unit must exist in every file.

- major changes happened in the segment level; due to comment on not having regimentation PRs; in the f2f it was decided that segments need to get uncluttered to allow real re-segmentation; now the segment is clear - it only allows source and target; attributes are also pretty simple: id, translate, approved, state, and sub- state.

- it is clear that 'state' and 'approved' have some relationship between each other; it wasn't clear what; it was commented by Ryan & Yves; I.e. lack of PRs regarding the state and approved; I have proposed a solution and implemented it; since TC hasn't had consensus or a ballot, I have marked it as yellow; not clear it's a satisfactory solution;

b: Are you asking for dissent?

df: I was thinking of a ballot today; I can call for dissent giving two extra days or so;

- solution: making the approved attribute required. it is easy to maintain by everyone; I though it should have priority over the state attribute; state attribute has four states; I added constrains that are defining the relation between them;

- constrains: state must not be final iff approved is no and state must not be initial iff the approved is set to yes;

- some have suggested collapse the state and the sub-state; I don't think it’s a good idea due to granularity issues;

- sub-state and state are in a relationship; we need to have consensus on sub-properties and master properties; Ryan was in the discussion; lead to the conclusion that sub-properties should be made dependent on the master property by one constraint and one PR;

- constraints: you must not use the sub-property unless you specify the master property; this is true for sub-state, sub-fs, sub-type everything;

- PR was not clear; whenever someone updates state; they must also update or delete the sub-property; same should be true for all pairs of property and sub-property;

- it might be possible some of the sub-states are still valid after the update; this is just a special case of update; if you don't know about the sub-property you need to clear the sub-property;

- this is a major decision; conclusion was clear;

- because of some pending decisions and due to not having quorum today we cannot send the spec to the 2nd public review; we should finalise the spec this week; today we can decide informally whether any of the pending decisions can be resolved by calls for dissent or whether we need ballots;

- like to know what you think  about the proposed solution of approved and state

b: I agree it’s a good solution;

t: Looks good to me as well;

df: Missing PR regarding re-segmentation is a major blocking issue; it should be pretty simple though;

- can we have an informal _expression_ of opinion on the general sub-property solution? sub-ptoprties have the same PR and constraint.

dw: I have some concern about this sub-type; where sub-property has to be updated; sub-type may be the same value as it was before after the type changed, though it is considered to be updated; that's not really process driven;

df: If you are an agent changing the type and if you don't know anything about the sub-types, then you need to delete  them; if you happen to know the sub-property values, you may update it; sub-property may be the same; it’s up to the private authority that specified the custom values;

dw: It is somewhat confusing; but ok.

df: If you are getting a file with state and sub-state; if you don't know anything about the sub-state machine, and if you need to change the state you have to kill the sub-state; otherwise you have to update the sub-state; this is the general rationale of this solution;

dw: ok

df: There is no way to check whether invisible updates are proper; you can only check them if you know the private sub-state;

- all target related attributes were renamed to trg prefix; removed the inconsistencies: (tgt, trg)

- we introduced based on the public review comments the explicit handling of Processing Instructions; agents should process processing instructions in XLIFF documents; in the last meeting we agreed that we cannot possibly specify anything else as processing instruction is a core feature of XML;

- concerns have been captured and included in the spec as warnings, there is also a PR: you must not use PIs to compete with core/module features; we can ask agents to preserve PI; but there is no guarantee they will survive specially in lower structural level elements; this is is expressed in the warnings

b: I support this;

df: I was doing the normative language .. using agents related terminology and I was doing the constraints;

- <conformance section>

- section has been divided and numbered: *document conformance *application conformance and *backward compatibility

- introduced processes and agents related terminology; they are used throughout the doc, still  WIP;

a: Needs a consistency check throughout the spec in relation to process and agent related terminology

df: Sure, I am working on it

b: That's clear; I like the numbered conformance statements and the new definitions;


Owner: Bryan Schnabel
Group: OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC
Sharing: This event is shared with the OASIS Open (General Membership), and General Public groups. Public Event Link
PRODID:-//Kavi Corporation//NONSGML Kavi Groups//EN
DESCRIPTION:\n	Please join my
  meeting.\n	https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/905529225\n	Use
  your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is
  recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.\n\n	  
  France: +33 (0) 182 880 780\n	   Germany: +49 (0) 892 2061
  159\n	   Spain: +34 911 23 0850\n	   Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500
  612\n	   United Kingdom: +44 (0) 203 535 0611\n	   United
  States: +1 (773) 945-1031\n\n	\n	Access Code:
  905-529-225\n	Audio PIN: Shown after joining the
  meeting\n	Meeting ID: 905-529-225\n\nAgenda: \n	I
  Administration (0:00 - 0:10)\n	  A. Roll call\n	  B. Approve
  previous meeting minutes, 16 July 2013
  https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201307/msg00086.html\n\n	II
  XLIFF 2.0 (0:10 - 0:45)\n	  A. Actions required to stay on
  track according to our timeline
      1. Readiness for second public review ballot?\n	     2.
  Reference Implementations for XLIFF 2.0 [identify by 16
  July] (Kevin)
   B. Public review completed\n	     1. Comments are tracked
  on the wiki: review assignments and status\n	        
      2. Review progress on comment replies and
  updates\n\n	III XLIFF 2.X? 3.0? (0:45 - 0:50)\n	    1.
  Freeze on Feature Tracking wiki? Or queue proposed post 2.0
  features there?\n	    2. Do we have an official path for
  promoting custom namespace to supported core/module post
  XLIFF 2.0?\n\n	IV Charter (Bryan to update site)\n\n	V Sub
  Committee Report (0:50 - 0:55)\n\n	VI Current and New
  Business (0:55 - )\nGroup: OASIS XML Localisation
  Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC\nCreator: Bryan Schnabel

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