XLIFF TC Call - Summary - Nov-15-2016

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Summary of the XLIFF TC Call Nov-15-2016
========================================

- Present: David, Bryan, Yves, Soroush, Tom, Lucia
- Regrets: Phil, (Felix probably in Dublin too)


  B. Approve meeting minutes, 1 November 2016
     https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201611/msg00016.html

BS: move to accept those as the minutes for last call
YS: second
No dissent.

BS: One of the XLF2.1 issues difficult to resolve is #9 (ITS vs ITSM namespace)
BS has issue with audio.


--- Issue #9: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-9

YS: it seems that if we don't use ITS namespace we can't have them as ITS data categories
.. We can't access them with ITS processors

DF: there are other obstacles with ITS processors, like sm/em too.

YS: I think sm is pretty much the only obstacle if you have ITS pointers

DF: Felix mentioned the fact we could use the ITS schemas
.. for example docbook 5.1, not sure about DITA
SS: That is correct (DocBook+ITS)
DF: so if we can change the catalog and point to our schema
.. then we could do the ITS validation

TC: I'm not aware of any different schema for ITS in DITA

DF: we should confirm with Felix
.. We should move to something else.


DF: Issue 8 is depending on issue 9.

SS: DocBook doesn't use the ITS native namespace.
DF: also for data categories without pointers?
SS: Not sure, will have to check


--- Issue-4: CTR: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-4

DF: think we should track only separate items
.. not able to track several things in one item
.. maybe we can have content and some other coordinated attributes
.. Will work on a possible solution: change data model and PRs.
.. and Soroush will update the Schematron


--- Issue-5: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-5

Depending on #9 too.

DF: we should be able to change the list of what is making up the XLIFF-defined elements/attributes
YS: It seems that would be a core change: some core PR depend on the definition of what is a XLIFF-defined construct
.. so if we change that definition, we change the core, no?
DF: I think we should be able to change the definitions, it's not part of the core.


--- Issue-10: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-10

Good catch.
Error in the schema it seems.
Soroush to change the schema.
No dissent.


BS: will have a hard stop at 9AM PT

-end