Event Title: XLIFF TC Call Date: Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 11:00am to 12:00pm EST Description Please get the dial in information from our private Action Item here:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3663 This meeting counts towards voter eligibility.
Agenda I Administration (0:00 - 0:10) A. Roll call B. Approved meeting minutes, 04 February 2014 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201402/msg00010.html C. Yves added support in the latest snapshot of Rainbow (okapi-apps at http://okapi.opentag.com/snapshots/) for extracting to XLIFF v2 and merging back. II XLIFF 2.0 (0:10 - 0:45) A. Public Review III is underway https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201402/msg00015.html 11 Feb 00:00 GMT - 25 February 23:59 GMT B. Evaluate comments collected on the tracker for PR-III for substantive vs. editorial (https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker) C. Do we add the media type registration for XLIFF 2.0 to the spec? Or do we add it as a standalone template? (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201402/msg00027.html) III XLIFF 2.X? 3.0? (0:45 - 0:50) A. Freeze on Feature Tracking wiki? Or queue proposed post 2.0 features there? B. 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 - ) Minutes
Meeting notes summary: (1) TC agreed to DavidF proposal that "the XLIFF TC requests that TC Admin produce for us a standalone OASIS template (front matter) for the IANA media type registration template/form as a separate work product" and formalizing the "TC's requesting a standalone OASIS template for the IANA media type registration template/form as a separate work product in the same meeting [mandating dF to fill out this admin form https://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tc-admin-requests/work-product-registration-template-request to that effect]" (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201402/msg00027.html). (2) Each issue on the tracker (200 - 226) was presented to TC and ask if anyone objected to it being catagorized as editorial, not substantive. Each issue was agreed by TC to be editorial, not substantive. B: - regrets: DavidF, Lucia, and Helena - 3rd public review is underway now; started on 11th Feb and will end on 25th of Feb; - Currently we are on track to still meet the projected date for completing the OASIS official standard for XLIFF 2.0; it coincides nicely with the XLIFF symposium. - If we can come to agreement that we do not have any substantive changes, and if the changes are largely editorial in nature , then we will not have to have the PR IV - People from the community are largely of the opinion that they want to have XLIFF 2.0 sooner than later - We as a TC decide that we want to have a standalone doc for the media type registration, or if we think we need to include that in the XLIFF 2.0 spec; that would be fine, but doing so would push back our publication date; - No sub-committee meeting today - Moving to admin tasks: - Roll call: Y, A, B, DO'C, DW, F, Ray, T, U, K - 9 out of 15 eligible voters in attendance - We've achieved quorum F: J will join later B: - Already approved the minutes of the previous meeting - Yves added xliff 2.0 support for Rainbow (http://okapi.opentag.com/snapshots/) - Concluding agenda item I and moving to agenda item II: - It would be useful to evaluate the comments that we've got so far; and also let's take a look at media type registration - Moving to II.C: - dF has put lot of energy investigating this and interacting with OASIS admins; Fredrik Estreen (to All - Entire Audience via Chat): 7/13 voters according to Kavi - dF is proposing that the XLIFF TC request that the TC administrators produce for us a standalone OASIS template with front matter for the IANA media type registration as a separate work product; - dF is not formally making a proposal with this email, but rather he wants us to discuss this during today’s meeting -- We have two options: we can let this media type registration document live as a separate work and use that in our registration of media types -- We can choose to include this in our spec; downside is that IANA media type registration changes from time to time; every time it changes we'd have to change our spec to reflect those changes. Tom or Yves, do you have any views on this? Y: - nothing B: - Joachim joined. - I'm in support of dF's proposal. Is there anybody who thinks that we should embed this in the XLIFF 2.0 specification? F: - i don't understand why we need to make the registration itself a part of the standard? B: - I agree, I don't see any advantages including in the spec and in fact I would say that it would be harmful (according to dF). f: If we need to publish it somehow I do agree that we should not embed in the main specification; but why do we need to publish it using a specific front matter or why do we need to publish it at all? ... Normative in some way? B: - We don't want to make it normative from the spec's point of view - If we try to hit to our projected date, we don't have to … normative ref from the spec to the registration doc - T or Y anything to add? Y: - not really, like Fredrick, I am not quite sure what's the interest of adding that along with the specification or in the specification?... B: - We've said that it is required to do so. - I don't think anybody is arguing in favour of embedding this in the specification; I don't think we have a firm understanding why it requires to be a separate work product at all; ... we indeed accept dF's proposal as written and we mandate him to fill out the form as necessary T: - I second. B: - are there any objections? F: - no objections, but I abstain; because I don't understand why we need this. B: - running through the issues in the issue tracker: - <going through the accepted definitions of the terms: substantive and editorial> - we've so far registered 26 comments; so far my judgemental is that each of the issues has been editorial; propose to go through the issues that have been tracked so far and decide whether they are substantive or not; -- 200: <describes the issue>, editorial, no disagreements/objections -- 201: in contact with Ryan and in agreement with Ryan - editorial, no disagreements/objections -- 202: editorial change, no disagreements/objections -- 203: editorial change, no disagreements/objections -- 204: editorial change, no disagreements/objections -- 205: editorial change, no disagreements/objections -- 206: editorial change, no disagreements/objections -- 207: editorial change, no disagreements/objections -- 208: several occurrences of uppercase XML namespace or lowercase xml namespace F: I'd personally prefer the uppercase, B: agree Y: agrees B: we need to verify in the W3C XML namespace spec, and we should choose that one -- 209: editorial change, no disagreements/objections -- 210: editorial change, no disagreements/objections Fredrik Estreen (to All - Entire Audience via chat): Example from W3C Namespaces in XML: " An XML namespace is identified by a URI reference" F: introduction from the namespace ... xml document -- 211: editorial change, no disagreements/objections -- 212: editorial change, no disagreements/objections -- 213: editorial change, no disagreements/objections -- 214: DO'C and Yves are assigned; is this something that you can take on? Y: I can take it on, but you know my opinion. B: You are referring to the fact that owner should be somebody different? Y: not necessarily, if nobody says anything I will implement the change b: DO'C, any feedback useful for item 214? DO'C: will do B: editorial change, no disagreements/objections - Yves made further improvements to the checker 216 TC Admin Comment: editorial change, no disagreements/objections 217: editorial change, no disagreements/objections 218: editorial change, no disagreements/objections 219, 220, 221, 222, 223,224, 225} : editorial changes, no disagreements/objections -We have consensus among the TC members that 200-225 are editorial. - Agenda item VI: no new business. - so far not discovered any substantive changes - b: Joachim, you are the owner of the glossary module, not sure whether you've seen the request for clarification by Yves <describe the request> - Y, you are asking about the translation candidate module more than the glossary module? Y: I am asking about the consistency of two usage mechanisms, because they are very similar, in once case it is required in the other case it is optional J: I don’t have a comment about the translation candidate module; ... nobody has seen that it is not synchronised; I've no particular opinion about the translation candidate module Y: .. the rest on the glossary should be optional? J: yes B: I have been ….. translation candidate module, making optional would not negatively impact; I have no objection making it optional. Y: We need to check with DO'C; it is probably not substantive. B: 226: editorial: assign this to dF and DO'C; - I'll continue to update the change tracker; - We are on track for the dates as calculated before; - Meeting adjourned. 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 NOTE: The best way to keep your desktop calendar updated is to subscribe to the Group calendar. - Learn more about subscribing here.
- View the updated Group web calendar here.
|