XLIFF TC Call
Date: Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 11:00am to 12:00pm EST
Please get the dial in information from our private Action Item here:
This meeting counts towards voter eligibility.
I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)
A. Roll call
B. Approved meeting minutes, 04 February 2014
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
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 - )
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.
- 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
- 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?
- 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?
- i don't understand why we need to make the registration itself a part of the standard?
- 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?
- 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?
- not really, like Fredrick, I am not quite sure what's the interest of adding that along with the specification or in the specification?...
- 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
- I second.
- are there any objections?
- no objections, but I abstain; because I don't understand why we need this.
- 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: 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?
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
Learn more about subscribing
View the updated Group web calendar