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 Call - Meeting Summary - Feb-16-2016

XLIFF TC Conference Call - Feb-16-2016
Meeting Summary

I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)
  A. Roll call

DF: we have a quorum.

  B. Approve meeting minutes, 2 February 2016

BS: move to accept the minutes
YS: second
No dissent

  C. Revise scheduled for XLIFF 2.1    

BS: Let's table this.

  D. Requesting progress of ISO submission of XLIFF 2.0

BS: News on this.
.. Peter wants to report to the TC that he's ready to make more progress
.. will need to have a conference call to set the ISO TC47 up to speed.
.. may be around the 23rd/24th
.. with DavidF and BryanS
DF: Would XLIFF be addressed at Copenhagen meeting?
BS: He did not say it would.
DF: Would be a shame not to have it addressed in Copenhagen.
DF: Did not made progress yet on joining the Irish delegation.

  E. * XLIFF 2.0 Support - Survey (Lucía)

BS: Lucia not on the call.
DF: sub committees are only on first Tuesday of each month now.
.. not much progress with this survey
.. may look at a simplified version if this is not going anywhere
.. Intention was to test it on committee members
.. But would be great if we could use the current form.

  F. * Action Item progress (as tracked in kavi AI tracker)

BS: Added item for Phil.
.. any progress on the other action items?
.. no progress for me.
DF: Progress on uniqueness of IDs for inline.
.. did you made changes to schema Soroush?
.. FelixS came up with a strategy to handle the issue
.. but we still need to implement it.
.. YvesS also reported that the MS OM was not generating error for the test file.

Soroush: I have done progress finding solutions, will have the full changes implemented by the next meeting, for all points I have
done progress finding solutions, will have the full changes implemented by the next meeting, for all points

BS: no action item related to this in Kavi.
.. will add the action items then.

DF: Yves made the example and I committed it.
.. FelixS and Soroush and I worked on the solution for advance validator.
.. now Soroush is implementing the solution.

II XLIFF 2.1 (0:10 - 0:45)

* indicates new topic, not yet discussed

  A. Discuss whether can be allowed at all extension points (Ryan)
  B. Inline attributes and canCopy (Ryan)
  C. NVDL for the core is updated (Soroush)
  D. NVDL validation for XLIFF 2.0 (Soroush)
  E. * Comment on 2.1 draft (Yves)
  F. * CanReorder Validation error (Ryan)
  G. * ITS text analytics (David)
  H. Internationalization and beyond related metadata for JSON - XLIFF perspective? (Felix)
  I. * Question on namespace re-writing and ITS text analysis (Felix)
  J. * Proposal For Change Tracking in XLIFF 2.1 (Phil)
  K. * Inline codes in Change Tracking (Yves)
  L. * XLIFF and ITS mapping- Elements within text (Soroush)
  M. * XLIFF and ITS mapping-ID value (Soroush)

  N. * [Progress on AI] Example with inline codes for MTC module test suite (Yves)

DF: Soroush did you look at the example file?
.. this can be used as your test file.
Soroush: yes.
FE: We did implemention here too and that works for us (making the uniqueness for core only).

  O. * <sm/> and <em/> (Ryan, Patrik) 

DF: the issue is about not allowing <sm/> to be orphan.
.. can't do changes to 2.0, but we can clarify the wording in 2.1.

FE: We did discuss this in the inline sub-committee and decided to not allow it.
DF: Remember checking that isolated sm and em was not allowed.
.. issue is just that there is no constraint saying so
FE: a clarifying note would be good.
DF: not sure what Ryan would like to see as the solution, but we can't change the 2.0 spec.
.. we can only make 2.1 clearer.
.. Informal consensus this is worth a note, but not a formal constraint
FE: there is text saying an annotation is represented by a marker pair sm/em or by mrk.
.. I can post an answer pointing to that text.
BS: Let's keep it open until Ryan agrees to close it.


FE: Hope to be able to go faster.
.. Got a trial version for oXygen
BS: maybe we can get some free subscriptions for oXygen.
.. for edit and test the XLIFF support there.

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

BS: any report?
DF: I have some P&L items:

DF: George suggested to put his XLIFF function in oXygen under open-source (LGPL or Apache)
.. this relates to the option we have to hve open-source code in OASIS
.. may be an option for oXygen.
.. we could have more projects like this.
FE: How the OASIS Git compare to GitHub or other hosts?
DF: Do not know
FE: GitHub offers a lot more than just Git
DF: maybe we can talk to OASIS about this
.. they seem to have difficulties to setup Git
.. But it may be an OASIS issue
.. cannot open things to 3rd party that did not sign the IPR constraints
FE: Don't see this as a problem.
.. you can set the rights
.. and contributors can send patches or pull requests
DF: make sense.
.. Same as MS-OM
FE: Yes. The idea is to propose, and the owners can accept or reject.
.. there are good comments/communication mechanisms in GitHub

YS: Don't think OASIS can do more than just setup Git
FE: agree
FS: agree
BS: agree
DF: so the suggestion would be to work on GitHub?
BS: it is attractive in many ways.
FE: Could also mirror OASIS Git and copy in GitHub
DF: So do we request Git for the TC?
BS: sounds fine. But Fredrik or Felix will have to test.
DF: Should we have Git separated from the XLIFF-OMOS Git?
.. there may be cross implementations
BS: don't see a downside for this
DF: Not sure how many repositories we can have with Git on OASIS
.. need to discuss options with Chet
BS: no objections

DF: Call for papers for the Symposium is still open
.. also for TMX, etc.
.. we met several people in Prague that may submit papers
BS: agree, XML Prague has been positive toward XLIFF in general
DF: symposium is June 5th
.. was thinking to make the excursion to the mountain part of the symposium
.. as a social part of the event

YS: Can't provide report for XLIFF-OMOS because I wasn't present
DF: wiki is setup
.. Yves provided an example to get things started
.. also some draft documents have been started
.. no Git yet (got svn)
.. nothing more
.. Ryan said he would propose alternative design
FS: nothing to add.

FE: are those serialization one-to-one mapping?
DF: seems main interest is in JLIFF for now
.. but thinking in an abstract way is a goal for several of us
.. JSON data model is very different from XML model
.. Think we are identifying issues for now
.. identifying assumptions various people make

IV Current and New Business

BS: any new business?
- none

Meeting adjourned

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