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: XLIFF TC Minutes (Nov-4-2014)

XLIFF TC Minutes for Nov-4-2014 Call

=== I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)
-- A. Roll call  
Present: Bryan (BS), Tom (TC), DavidW (DW), DavidF (DF), Joachim (JS), Fredrik (FE), Michael (MO), Yves (YS), Uwe (US).

-- B. Approve meeting minutes, 21 October 2014

BS: we will table to approval until the server is back up.

-- C. XLIFF 2.0 as an ISO standard
DF: we can skip this.
.. will look at it in P&L call.

-- D. Provisional media type registration passed

BS: ballot passed
DF: did forwarded the result of the ballot and described the provisional aspect.

-- E. Deadline for proposing new XLIFF 2.1 features
DF: we need to do this to keep up with the release next summer.
.. we discussed this during Vancouver meeting
.. think the TBX mapping would be the last item that would make it.
.. We can call for the closure after that item is proposed.
BS: so Nov-18 would be the deadline
DF: yes.
BS: seems reasonable to me
.. we had time for proposals since August
DF: I propose that we have consensus to close new features for 2.1 by Nov-18
BS: second that

US: do we have the schedule somewhere?
DF: yes, on Kevin's slides, but I don't have them here.
.. important is the public review starts in January
US: we should post the schedule on line
BS: agree
.. any dissent for the deadline?
FE: not from me
.. think even that Nov-18 is a bit late
DF: proposals are not necessarily guaranteed to be passed for 2.1
.. so we have control over that
US: don't think anyone will come with anything major
.. we would have heard about it
JS: agree
DF: so there is no dissent
--> Nov-18 will be the deadline

(* indicates new, not acted upon, since last meeting)
=== II XLIFF 2.1 (0:10 - 0:45) 

-- F. TBX - XLIFF Mapping (URL TBD) (DavidF)
BS: let's do this one first
DF: did a wiki entry for this.
.. the email has the proposal for the mapping (and slides)
.. would be a mapping between the glossary module and TBX-Simple
.. Alan, Soroush, and others worked on this.
.. it means round-trip are possible between the module and a TBX-Basic file

JS: what is the benefit to have a mapping?
BS: advantage of glossary module is that term are presented locally to the unit
.. can also be discovered.
JS: so no TBX as a module?
DF: maybe for 2.2 since there is a perfect match with glossary module
JS: We do have to keep in mind that TBX-Basic is not a 'standard' 
DF: yes, the ISO standard in TML, and TBX is a profile of TML
JS: there are issues of publication between ISO and ETSI
.. we are in the middle of getting the situation solved
.. wish I could have talked to alan
DF: Alan said the situation was solved
JS: not formally
.. the plan for TBX is have a light version of it, as an informal addition
.. with a number of various profiles to be published as recommendations
US: so should we wait for better clarification before we go to map to TBX-Basic?
DF: think TBX-Basic is the "useable" subset of TBX, is widely used
.. idea is to have an appendix in 2.1
JS: correct: it's just a mapping, not a new module, so it's OK
FE: this could live outside the specification too
DF: thought there are advantages to have it in specification
FE: but there would be nothing normative there
.. it doesn't extend the standard
DF: think that LTACGlobal could refer to it
.. or others to make 'normative' reference
YS: not sure how you can make normative ref to something not normative
DF: it's done elsewhere (like ref to RFCs)
FE: don't mine doing the mapping and publishing it
.. but don't see the value to have it in the specification
YS: would be easier to maintain this outside of the specifications
BS: we do this for 1.2 for example
DF: TC can publish a standard, a Note or an errata
.. I suppose we could publish a Note
.. but think it'd better to include it in the specification as an appendix
BS: maybe criteria is to have a module mapping to it
.. would like to have a DTD or schema to make the mapping enforceable
JS: this seems to be like a "technical recommendation"
FE: think a Note would be better
US, YS, JS: agree with a Note
JS: we can revisit this later once things are clear with ETSI
DF: so the majority thinks it should go to a separate Note
.. so for me it will not work
JS: how big is the risk to get the mapping wrong?
FE: quite big as it seems people get things wrong all the time
JS: why a Note would not work?
DF: moving more than 1 document is hard in the TC
FE: then it is a problem for OASIS process
.. if a Note is not easy to publish
BS: for 1.2 the notes were easy to process
.. Basically: just committee approval
.. we need to conclude the discussion
DF: let continue the discussion on this until the deadline

-- A. Versions and Modules - Yves

-- B. *Provenance and Change Track Module (Yves)

-- C. *ITS: Preserve space and Language Information

-- D. *Quick question on trgLang (Ryan)

-- E. *@disabled in Validation Module. Fix example. Add constraint? (Bryan)

=== III Sub Committee Report (0:45 - 0:55)

DF: Symposium was successful
.. good discussion
.. one of the result was the TBX mapping

IV Current and New Business (0:55 - )

Nothing new.

Next call on Nov-18


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