[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 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201411/msg00010.html 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 https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/ballot.php?id=2687 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 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201410/msg00037.html -- B. *Provenance and Change Track Module (Yves) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201410/msg00045.html -- C. *ITS: Preserve space and Language Information https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201410/msg00054.html -- D. *Quick question on trgLang (Ryan) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201410/msg00061.html -- E. *@disabled in Validation Module. Fix example. Add constraint? (Bryan) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201411/msg00000.html === 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 -done
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]