[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: XLIFF TC Meeting Minutes - 2013-10-15
- Attendance: H, S, T, DF, L, K, Y, B, J, U, DW, A
- Don't see Fredrick; 12 voters; we have quorum.
Bryan:
- Meeting minutes:https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201310/msg00003.html seconded by Tom & Yves. No objections;
- We have just concluded the 2nd public review; concluded on the 15th of October; a very active public review with very constructive comments.
- Public review comments tracker URL: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker
- We consider comments of the public review 1 to be frozen; the comments for the public review 2 are active but we are not accepting any new comments;
DavidF:
- I added a comment today, it came from the admins in Sep; those are really minor issues; I added them as 146.
Bryan:
- It was listed as 24 September.
- We will need to triage each of these comments; comments 100-111 have been already triaged in the 1st meeting in September;
DavidF:
- I did some filtering on the items; I have made a few groups of “editorial” and “minor fixes” that I believe we could approve in one go. I think these can be summery approved.
* Minor editorial changes - owned by David: 102, 110, 116, 124, 128, 133, 135, 136, 146
* Typos - owned by Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125
* Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145
* Example fix - owned by Bryan: 134
Yves:
- What do you mean by approved? Did you make the changes?
DavidF:
- I called them editorial changes that can be fixed as suggested.
Bryan:
- What are you asking us to approve?
DavidF:
- I am proposing to approve the (above listed) comments to be fixed as suggested;
Bryan:
-You are proposing that we accept those proposed solutions by the commenters, as approved by the TC. I will second that.
- Tom may need to leave early; will it affect the quorum?
DavidF:
- No
DavidF:
- Proposal: I move to approve the above comments as editorial changes, to be fixed as suggested by the commenters.
Bryan:
- Seconds the proposal.
Yves:
- Some of those comments have no suggestion; for example 102, there is no wording corresponding to any suggestion.
DavidF:
- Yes. There is no wording, it is just a clarification.
Yves:
- I've seen clarifications leading to problems. I'd like to see the actual wordings.
DavidF:
- Let's take out 102 then.
Bryan:
- Are there any others that belong to the same category?
Yves:
- I don't know. I didn't get a chance to have a look;
Bryan:
- Shall we quickly go through each of these?
DavidF:
- I wouldn't go through the Typos
Bryan:
- I agree.
DavidF:
- 134 is an example fix;
Bryan:
- I agree; we would change the <x> to <ph> and we would make sure that the <ph> has the required id attribute.
DavidF:
- Next is 110: xml:space; I am happy to fix it as suggested.
Yves:
- There is no specific suggestion;
DavidF:
- What it basically says is that it should have the link, and the link is a normative link...
Yves:
- It should say white space should be spelled consistently; we have no corresponding change to it; how are you going to spell it? I know it is not important but... list of changes along with the resolution so people could look at that and approve.
Bryan:
- Let's take out 110 then;
DavidF:
- 116 is about undefined values in metadata; cannot be formatted as code because it is not a value;
Bryan:
- The proposal is to use unformatted text, clear to me
DavidF:
- 124: Alphabetical order; clear enough
Bryan:
- Clear to me
DavidF:
- 128: There is a missing element that accepts extended attributes, an error correction
Bryan:
- I agree, clear to me
DavidF:
- 133: Naming issues, alphabetical issues and formatting issues
Bryan:
- We have a convention that says when we have concatenated words; we make the first word lower case and upper case the second word;
DavidF:
- 135: No suggestions, it's a clarification; this should be taken out;
- 136: error correction, notes missing in the list of extendable elements that seems to be clear;
- 146: I fixed that already in the new working draft;
- The new group for the summery approval:
* Editorial, fix as suggested
DavidF: 116, 124, 128, 133, 136, 146
* Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125
* Bryan: 134 example fix
Bryan:
- I second this new list.
DavidF:
- I am going to take the votes;
yes= approve the proposed solutions
no= do not approve the proposed solutions
abstain = abstain from voting
Helena = yes, Shirly = Yes, Tom = Yes, DavidF=Yes, Kevin = Yes, Yves= Abstain, Bryan = Yes, Joachim=Yes, Uwe=Yes, DavidW=Yes, Asanka=Yes
11 yes, 1 abstain
Bryan:
- Aside from the non-controversial ones, several of these will require more work; I propose the remaining five minutes to take a look at the owners for each of the comments; some of the comments were not clear to me, about the ownership; I used “tbd” to denote them; we have 12 tbds on the list; people who received assignment from me, are there any objections for having your name as the owner?
DavidF:
- I am fine with my assignments.
Bryan:
- are you ok with your assignments Tom?
Tom:
- ok.
Bryan:
- I am ok with my assignments, Frederick isn't here. I will ask Frederick, Ryan isn't here either, I will also email him;
- Comment # 118: no link between type and subtype for inline code; this is something that should be owned by Tom.
DavidF:
- there are two parts to it, one that - we aim to have the type and subtype – sub-property types with processing requirements or constraints; that basically subtype must not exist without the type; that is fair to require; you must update the subtype if you updated the type. I believe this should be a part of the fix; this is not proposed by the commenter; Yves, would you agree with also linking them with constrains and processing requirements?
Yves:
- Don't we already have that?
David:
- Not sure;
Yves:
- There is already that.
DavidF:
- Sorry for my confusion, if this in place, this is a simple fix. I agree with the proposed solution and I can take it;
Bryan:
- DavidF takes the ownership of 118.
- 119 is definitions and spelling of quote type ; type value for quote is defined as ... we have no owner for this item, it seems pretty clear and non-controversial, I will take the ownership;
Yves:
-What's the definition of quote exactly? We are just looking at the ownership;
Bryan:
- I will take ownership of 119;
- 123 was withdrawn by Yves;
- Next to be determined is xml:lang and xml:space comment #127: .... so who'd like to take the ownership of this item? I understand this one relatively well; I will take the ownership of this one.
- Next comment: #130: about translation annotation, candidate annotation;
DavidF:
- I am happy to take the ownership of 130;
Bryan:
- How about 131; sections in the specification;
David:
- We probably could do it now; it is worth discussing now - it is a very big reshuffle if we went for it; I don't think we are unhappy with the appendixes;
Bryan:
- Are you proposing that we solve this right now?
DavidF:
- I prefer to stay with the structure as is; If the TC thinks ... i am for the second proposal;
Bryan:
- I support Yves’ proposal. That we move the .. into the numbered portion of the specification;
DavidF:
- I'd probably make a ballot now.
- Options: a) keep as it is, b) use sections, c) use sub-sections
Bryan:
- Any discussions needed before the ballot? I second.
DavidF:
- H: 3 S:(offline) T: 2 df: 1 L: abs Y: 3 K: 3 B: 3 J: 3 U : 3 DW: 3 A: 3
- 3 is the clear winner; 8 votes for 3; this is resolved. I can own the implementation;
Bryan:
- We have 8 mins left. Updates on the promotion liaison subcommittee meeting?
DavidF:
- People who want to stay for the P&L SC can stay for the call; it will be about the status of the state of the art report;
Bryan:
- I propose that we make changes to the remaining agenda items as follows;
- Request for new business for next time; then work on couple of more tbds
- Is there any new business proposed for the agenda next time? No new business.
DavidF:
- Before we jump to the tbds, we need to discuss comment #112 schema issues - I am not sure whether this is already resolved as Tom already committed the new schemas;
Tom:
- I believe everything has been completed and committed;
DavidF:
- Yves, are you happy with the changes that Tom made?
Yves:
- Yes. It's working now;
Bryan:
- I propose we go ahead and close this; this could be re-opened as a placeholder for further testing when making new fixes;
DavidF:
- It is good to have opened it for others;
- It was not a formal approval, but no dissents reported.
Bryan:
- Good work on making those fixes.
Tom:
- Apologies, for the necessity of the fixes;
Bryan:
- The schemas are in much better shape;
- Are there any tbds that needs to be further discussed?
- Remaining tbds: 132, 137, 138,140, 141, 143,144
DavidF:
- 132 should be owned by you;
Byran :
- Agreed. 132 will be owned by me.
DavidF:
- It is better to assign all of them now.
Bryan:
- 137: Yves and I have debated this on the mailing list - we just drop the note ; xliff is an exchange format not a processing format, this was unfriendly for some tools; or else we can make a decision to drop this note; are there any other thoughts?
DavidF:
- The note is very important; I wouldn't drop it; it is just a note; many times people have suggested with changes to the specification for xliff to be processing friendly; the note clarifies that xliff is an interchange format; we can add another note ;
Bryan:
- Accept to have the second note;
- DavidF, can you own that?
DavidF:
- I can.
Bryan:
- 138 - Tom listed this is a schema ambiguity; Tom is not in the call; Ii agree that there are ambiguities; this could be assigned to Tom to resolve on the mailing list;
DavidF:
- 139 should be owned by Ryan rather than me; …
Bryan:
- Tom noted that specification allows .. to be added to file, skeleton, group, unit, glossary, match.
DavidF:
- Those are the extension points; I think Ryan is the best person.
Bryan:
- We will deal with the remain tbds in the mailing list;
- Meeting adjourned.DavidF:
- Attendance: H, S, T, DF, L, K, Y, B, J, U, DW, A
- Don't see Fredrick; 12 voters; we have quorum.
Bryan:
- Meeting minutes:https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201310/msg00003.html seconded by Tom & Yves. No objections;
- We have just concluded the 2nd public review; concluded on the 15th of October; a very active public review with very constructive comments.
- Public review comments tracker URL: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker
- We consider comments of the public review 1 to be frozen; the comments for the public review 2 are active but we are not accepting any new comments;
DavidF:
- I added a comment today, it came from the admins; those are really minor issues; I added them as 146.
Bryan:
- It was listed as 24 September.
- We will need to triage each of these comments; comments 100-111 have been already triaged in the 1st meeting in September;
DavidF:
- I did some filtering on the items; I have made a few groups of “editorial” and “minor fixes” that I believe we could approve in one go. I think these can be summery approved.
* Minor editorial changes - owned by David: 102, 110, 116, 124, 128, 133, 135, 136, 146
* Typos - owned by Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125
* Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145
* Example fix - owned by Bryan: 134
Yves:
- What do you mean by approved? Did you make the changes?
DavidF:
- I called them editorial changes; they can be fixed as suggested.
Bryan:
- What are you asking us to approve?
DavidF:
- I am proposing to approve (the above listed) the comments to be fix as suggested;
Bryan:
-You are proposing that we accept those proposed solutions by the commenters, as approved by the TC. I will second that.
- Tom may need to leave early; will it affect the quorum?
DavidF:
- No
DavidF:
- Proposal: I move to approve the above comments as editorial changes, to be fixed as suggested by the commenters.
Bryan:
- Seconds the proposal.
Yves:
- Some of those comments have no suggestion; for example 102, there is no wording corresponding to any suggestion.
DavidF:
- Yes. There is no wording, it is just a clarification.
Yves:
- I've seen clarifications leading to problems. I'd like to see the actual wordings.
DavidF:
- Let's take out 102 then.
Bryan:
- Are there any others that belong to the same category?
Yves:
- I don't know. I didn't get a chance to have a look everything;
Bryan:
- Shall we quickly go through each of these?
DavidF:
- I wouldn't go through the Typos
Bryan:
- I agree.
DavidF:
- 134 is an example fix;
Bryan:
- I agree; we would change the <x> to <ph> and we would make sure that the <ph> has the required id attribute.
DavidF:
- Next is 110: xml:space; I am happy to fix it as suggested.
Yves:
- There is no specific suggestion;
DavidF:
- What it basically says is that it should have the link, and the link is a normative link...
Yves:
- It should say white space should be spelled consistently; we have no corresponding change to it; how are you going to spell it? I know it is not important but... list of changes along with the resolution so people could look at that and approve.
Bryan:
- Let's take out 110 then;
DavidF:
- 116 is about undefined metadata; cannot be formatted as scope because it is not a value;
Bryan:
- The proposal is to use unformatted text, clear to me
DavidF:
- 124: Alphabetical order; clear enough
Bryan:
- Clear to me
DavidF:
- 128: There is a missing element that accepts extended attributes, an error correction
Bryan:
- I agree, clear to me
DavidF:
- 133: Naming issues, alphabetical issues and formatting issues
Bryan:
- We have a convention that says when we have concatenated words; we make the first word lower case and upper case the second word;
DavidF:
- 135: No suggestions, it's a clarification; this should be taken out;
- 136: error correction, notes missing in the list of extendable elements that seems to be clear;
- 146: I fixed that in the new working draft;
- The new group for the summery approval:
* Editorial, fix as suggested:
* DavidF: 116, 124, 128, 133, 136, 146
* Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125
* Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145
* Bryan: 134 example fix
Bryan:
- I second this new list.
DavidF:
- I am going to take the votes;
yes= approve the proposed solutions
no= do not approve the proposed solutions
abstain = abstain from voting
Helena=Yes, Shirly=Yes, Tom=Yes, DavidF=Yes, Lucia=Yes, Kevin=Yes, Yves=Abstain, Bryan=Yes, Joachim=Yes, Uwe=Yes, DavidW=Yes, Asanka=Yes
11 yes, 1 abstain
Bryan:
- Aside from the non-controversial ones, several of these will require more work; I propose the remaining five minutes to take a look at the owners for each of the comments; some of the comments were not clear to me, about the ownership; I used “tbd” to denote them; we have 12 tbds on the list; people who received assignment from me, are there any objections for having your name as the owner?
DavidF:
- I am fine with my assignments.
Bryan:
- are you ok with your assignments Tom?
Tom:
- ok.
Bryan:
- I am ok with my assignments, Frederick isn't here. I will ask Frederick, Ryan isn't here either, I will also email him;
- Comment # 118: no link between type and subtype for inline code; this is something that should be owned by Tom.
DavidF:
- there are two parts to it, one that - we aim to have the type and subtype – sub-property types with processing requirements or constraints; that basically subtype must not exist without the type; that is fair to require; you must update the subtype if you updated the type. I believe this should be a part of the fix; this is not proposed by the commenter; Yves, would you agree with also linking them with constrains and processing requirements?
Yves:
- Don't we already have that?
David:
- Not sure;
Yves:
- There is already that.
DavidF:
- Sorry for my confusion, if this in place, this is a simple fix. I agree with the proposed solution and I can take it;
Bryan:
- DavidF takes the ownership of 118.
- 119 is definitions and spelling of quote type ; type value for quote is defined as ... we have no owner for this item, it seems pretty clear and non-controversial, I will take the ownership;
Yves:
-What's the definition of quote exactly? We are just looking at the ownership;
Bryan:
- I will take ownership of 119;
- 123 was withdrawn by Yves;
- Next to be determined is xml:lang and xml:space comment #127: .... so who'd like to take the ownership of this item? I understand this one relatively well; I will take the ownership of this one.
- Next comment: #130: about translation annotation, candidate annotation;
DavidF:
- I am happy to take the ownership of 130;
Bryan:
- How about 131; sections in the specification;
David:
- We probably could do it now; it is worth discussing now - it is a very big reshuffle if we went for it; I don't think we are unhappy with the appendices;
Bryan:
- Are you proposing that we solve this right now?
DavidF:
- I prefer to stay with the structure as is; If the TC thinks we need the rehaul. i am for the second proposal;
Bryan:
- I support Yves’ proposal. That we move the modules into the numbered portion of the specification;
DavidF:
- I'd probably make a ballot now.
- Options: a) keep as it is, b) use sections, c) use sub-sections
Bryan:
- Any discussions needed before the ballot? I second.
DavidF:
- H:3 S:(offline) T:2 df:1 L:abs Y:3 K:3 B:3 J:3 U: 3 DW: 3 A:3
- 3 is the clear winner; 8 votes for 3; this is resolved. I can own the implementation;
Bryan:
- We have 8 mins left. Updates on the promotion liaison subcommittee meeting?
DavidF:
- People who want to stay for the P&L SC can stay for the call; it will be about the status of the state of the art report;
Bryan:
- I propose that we make changes to the remaining agenda items as follows;
- Request for new business for next time; then work on couple of more tbds
- Is there any new business proposed for the agenda next time? No new business.
DavidF:
- Before we jump to the tbds, we need to discuss comment #112 schema issues - I am not sure whether this is already resolved as Tom already committed the new schemas;
Tom:
- I believe everything has been completed and committed;
DavidF:
- Yves, are you happy with the changes that Tom made?
Yves:
- Yes. It's working now;
Bryan:
- I propose we go ahead and close this; this could be re-opened as a placeholder for further testing when making new fixes;
DavidF:
- It is good to have opened it for others; - It was not a formal approval, but no dissents reported.
Bryan:
- Good work on making those fixes.
Tom:
- Apologies, for the necessity of the fixes;
Bryan:
- The schemas are in much better shape;
- Are there any tbds that needs to be further discussed?
- Remaining tbds: 132, 137, 138,140, 141, 143,144
DavidF:
- 132 should be owned by you;
Byran :
- Agreed. 132 will be owned by me.
Bryan:
- 137: Yves and I have debated this on the mailing list - we just drop the note ; xliff is an exchange format not a processing format, this was unfriendly for some tools; or else we can make a decision to drop this note; are there any other thoughts?
DavidF:
- The note is very important; I wouldn't drop it; it is just a note; many times people have suggested changes to the specification for xliff to be processing friendly; the note clarifies that xliff is an interchange format; processing is out of scope; Rtaher than dropping the note we can add another.
Bryan:
- Accept to have the second note; DavidF, can you own that?
DavidF:
- I can.
Bryan:
- 138 - Tom listed this is a schema ambiguity; Tom is not in the call; Ii agree that there are ambiguities; this could be assigned to Tom to resolve on the mailing list;
DavidF:
- 139 should be owned by Ryan rather than me; …
Bryan:
- Tom noted that specification allows ctr to be added to file, skeleton, group, unit, glossary, match.
DavidF:
- Those are the extension points; I think Ryan is the best person.
Bryan:
- We will deal with the remain tbds in the mailing list;
- Meeting adjourned.
Dear Dr. David,
The meeting minutes are given below. Kindly verify the numbers of the comments and also correct any mistakes before you publish..
Thank you,
Kind regards
Asanka
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DavidF:
- Attendance: H, S, T, DF, L, K, Y, B, J, U, DW, A
- Don't see Fredrick; 12 voters; we have quorum.
Bryan:
- Meeting minutes:https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201310/msg00003.html seconded by Tom & Yves. No objections;
- We have just concluded the 2nd public review; concluded on the 15th of October; a very active public review with very constructive comments.
- Public review comments tracker URL: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker
- We consider comments of the public review 1 to be frozen; the comments for the public review 2 are active but we are not accepting any new comments;
DavidF:
- I added a comment today, it came from the admins; those are really minor issues; I added them as 146.
Bryan:
- It was listed as 24 September.
- We will need to triage each of these comments; comments 100-111 have been already triaged in the 1st meeting in September;
DavidF:
- I did some filtering on the items; I have made a few groups of “editorial” and “minor fixes” that I believe we could approve in one go. I think these can be summery approved.
* Minor editorial changes - owned by David: 102, 110, 116, 124, 128, 133, 135, 136, 146
* Typos - owned by Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125
* Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145
* Example fix - owned by Bryan: 134
Yves:
- What do you mean by approved? Did you make the changes?
DavidF:
- I called them editorial changes; they can be fixed as suggested.
Bryan:
- What are you asking us to approve?
DavidF:
- I am proposing to approve (the above listed) the comments to be fix as suggested;
Bryan:
-You are proposing that we accept those proposed solutions by the commenters, as approved by the TC. I will second that.
- Tom may need to leave early; will it affect the quorum?
DavidF:
- No
DavidF:
- Proposal: I move to approve the above comments as editorial changes, to be fixed as suggested by the commenters.
Bryan:
- Seconds the proposal.
Yves:
- Some of those comments have no suggestion; for example 102, there is no wording corresponding to any suggestion.
DavidF:
- Yes. There is no wording, it is just a clarification.
Yves:
- I've seen clarifications leading to problems. I'd like to see the actual wordings.
DavidF:
- Let's take out 102 then.
Bryan:
- Are there any others that belong to the same category?
Yves:
- I don't know. I didn't get a chance to have a look everything;
Bryan:
- Shall we quickly go through each of these?
DavidF:
- I wouldn't go through the Typos
Bryan:
- I agree.
DavidF:
- 134 is an example fix;
Bryan:
- I agree; we would change the <x> to <ph> and we would make sure that the <ph> has the required id attribute.
DavidF:
- Next is 110: xml:space; I am happy to fix it as suggested.
Yves:
- There is no specific suggestion;
DavidF:
- What it basically says is that it should have the link, and the link is a normative link...
Yves:
- It should say white space should be spelled consistently; we have no corresponding change to it; how are you going to spell it? I know it is not important but... list of changes along with the resolution so people could look at that and approve.
Bryan:
- Let's take out 110 then;
DavidF:
- 116 is about undefined metadata; cannot be formatted as scope because it is not a value;
Bryan:
- The proposal is to use unformatted text, clear to me
DavidF:
- 124: Alphabetical order; clear enough
Bryan:
- Clear to me
DavidF:
- 128: There is a missing element that accepts extended attributes, an error correction
Bryan:
- I agree, clear to me
DavidF:
- 133: Naming issues, alphabetical issues and formatting issues
Bryan:
- We have a convention that says when we have concatenated words; we make the first word lower case and upper case the second word;
DavidF:
- 135: No suggestions, it's a clarification; this should be taken out;
- 136: error correction, notes missing in the list of extendable elements that seems to be clear;
- 146: I fixed that in the new working draft;
- The new group for the summery approval:
* Editorial, fix as suggested
DavidF: 116, 124, 128, 133, 136, 146
* Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125
* Bryan: 134 example fix
Bryan:
- I second this new list.
DavidF:
- I am going to take the votes;
yes= approve the proposed solutions
no= do not approve the proposed solutions
abstain = abstain from voting
Helena = yes, Shirly = Yes, Tom = Yes, DavidF=Yes, Kevin = Yes, Yves= Abstain, Bryan = Yes, Joachim=Yes, Uwe=Yes, DavidW=Yes, Asanka=Yes
11 yes, 1 abstain
Bryan:
- Aside from the non-controversial ones, several of these will require more work; I propose the remaining five minutes to take a look at the owners for each of the comments; some of the comments were not clear to me, about the ownership; I used “tbd” to denote them; we have 12 tbds on the list; people who received assignment from me, are there any objections for having your name as the owner?
DavidF:
- I am fine with my assignments.
Bryan:
- are you ok with your assignments Tom?
Tom:
- ok.
Bryan:
- I am ok with my assignments, Frederick isn't here. I will ask Frederick, Ryan isn't here either, I will also email him;
- Comment # 118: no link between type and subtype for inline code; this is something that should be owned by Tom.
DavidF:
- there are two parts to it, one that - we aim to have the type and subtype – sub-property types with processing requirements or constraints; that basically subtype must not exist without the type; that is fair to require; you must update the subtype if you updated the type. I believe this should be a part of the fix; this is not proposed by the commenter; Yves, would you agree with also linking them with constrains and processing requirements?
Yves:
- Don't we already have that?
David:
- Not sure;
Yves:
- There is already that.
DavidF:
- Sorry for my confusion, if this in place, this is a simple fix. I agree with the proposed solution and I can take it;
Bryan:
- DavidF takes the ownership of 118.
- 119 is definitions and spelling of quote type ; type value for quote is defined as ... we have no owner for this item, it seems pretty clear and non-controversial, I will take the ownership;
Yves:
-What's the definition of quote exactly? We are just looking at the ownership;
Bryan:
- I will take ownership of 119;
- 123 was withdrawn by Yves;
- Next to be determined is xml:lang and xml:space comment #127: .... so who'd like to take the ownership of this item? I understand this one relatively well; I will take the ownership of this one.
- Next comment: #130: about translation annotation, candidate annotation;
DavidF:
- I am happy to take the ownership of 130;
Bryan:
- How about 131; sections in the specification;
David:
- We probably could do it now; it is worth discussing now - it is a very big reshuffle if we went for it; I don't think we are unhappy with the appendixes;
Bryan:
- Are you proposing that we solve this right now?
DavidF:
- I prefer to stay with the structure as is; If the TC thinks ... i am for the second proposal;
Bryan:
- I support Yves’ proposal. That we move the .. into the numbered portion of the specification;
DavidF:
- I'd probably make a ballot now.
- Options: a) keep as it is, b) use sections, c) use sub-sections
Bryan:
- Any discussions needed before the ballot? I second.
DavidF:
- H: 3 S:(offline) T: 2 df: 1 L: abs Y: 3 K: 3 B: 3 J: 3 U : 3 DW: 3 A: 3
- 3 is the clear winner; 8 votes for 3; this is resolved. I can own the implementation;
Bryan:
- We have 8 mins left. Updates on the promotion liaison subcommittee meeting?
DavidF:
- People who want to stay for the P&L SC can stay for the call; it will be about the status of the state of the art report;
Bryan:
- I propose that we make changes to the remaining agenda items as follows;
- Request for new business for next time; then work on couple of more tbds
- Is there any new business proposed for the agenda next time? No new business.
DavidF:
- Before we jump to the tbds, we need to discuss comment #112 schema issues - I am not sure whether this is already resolved as Tom already committed the new schemas;
Tom:
- I believe everything has been completed and committed;
DavidF:
- Yves, are you happy with the changes that Tom made?
Yves:
- Yes. It's working now;
Bryan:
- I propose we go ahead and close this; this could be re-opened as a placeholder for further testing when making new fixes;
DavidF:
- It is good to have opened it for others;
- It was not a formal approval, but no dissents reported.
Bryan:
- Good work on making those fixes.
Tom:
- Apologies, for the necessity of the fixes;
Bryan:
- The schemas are in much better shape;
- Are there any tbds that needs to be further discussed?
- Remaining tbds: 132, 137, 138,140, 141, 143,144
DavidF:
- 132 should be owned by you;
Byran :
- Agreed. 132 will be owned by me.
DavidF:
- It is better to assign all of them now.
Bryan:
- 137: Yves and I have debated this on the mailing list - we just drop the note ; xliff is an exchange format not a processing format, this was unfriendly for some tools; or else we can make a decision to drop this note; are there any other thoughts?
DavidF:
- The note is very important; I wouldn't drop it; it is just a note; many times people have suggested with changes to the specification for xliff to be processing friendly; the note clarifies that xliff is an interchange format; we can add another note ;
Bryan:
- Accept to have the second note;
- DavidF, can you own that?
DavidF:
- I can.
Bryan:
- 138 - Tom listed this is a schema ambiguity; Tom is not in the call; Ii agree that there are ambiguities; this could be assigned to Tom to resolve on the mailing list;
DavidF:
- 139 should be owned by Ryan rather than me; …
Bryan:
- Tom noted that specification allows .. to be added to file, skeleton, group, unit, glossary, match.
DavidF:
- Those are the extension points; I think Ryan is the best person.
Bryan:
- We will deal with the remain tbds in the mailing list;
- Meeting adjourned.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]