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: Modified: Regular 3rd Tue teleconference

Event Title: Regular 3rd Tue teleconference

Date: Tuesday, 20 November 2018, 04:00pm to 05:00pm WET
Location: the usual Skype for Business dial in

Call details inside private AI:


This meeting counts towards voter eligibility.


Approve COS02 and request Special Majority Ballot to approve OASIS wide call for consent for XLIFF Version 2.1 COC02


Participants: David F., Phil, Andrzej Zydron, Lucía, Tom.

I. Approve October 2, 2018 meeting minutes

Davidf: Phil, do you have voting rights?

Phil: I am not sure.

Davidf: You still have voting rights.

D: If we get Tom later, we will get quorum [Tom joined later the meeting and quorum was achieved].

Df: we can get an informal meeting if we cannot get the quorum.


Df: I am very happy that we have Andrzej back. We can have the discussion on the table about TMX. We were thinking about how to address this.

A: We talked about this in California.

Df: There was even a proposal in 2015 from Ryan King from Ms. They proposed to use the matches module (that elaborates from the alt-trans from 1.2). The advantages is that it allows to include other languages as reference.

A: I do not think that would be a good idea [including multilingual support].

Df: I absolutely understand it. XLIFF is bilingual. In matches, there are reasons for reference languages. A good example is Luxemburgish, there is a frequently use case that they use close languages. Only if the match is marked as reference, then the language tag can be different from the target language. There was some interest to make XLIFF multilingual, I think it came from Wordbee.

A: Having multilingual XLIFF, I think that is a bad idea. It is like multilingual documents, a bad idea. I would argue, that we use XLIFF 2.0 as memory exchange format. In XTM, we have been using succesfuly valid XLIFF to populate our memories.

D: just core?

A: yes. The beauty of it, it is only requires the core. In one elegant loop, we have replaced TMX. Because XLIFF only keeps the sequence, you can have in-context matches.

D: We have discussed three different ideas: a) One is what you described, adding a note explaining how to use it. B) Use the translation candidate module, that would not require any change of the arquitecture of the standard. I think they are not exclusive, depending on each use case C) Develop a different standard, that could be called XLIFF for TM, it will reuse XLIFF vocabulary; that was we try to do with TBX. Basically, we would just define another grammar, that would be multilingual.

A: So, that would open the multilevel support.

D: I am kind of worried if we can do in multiple ways. If it is too flexible like TBX. I would like us to choose one. The problem with the TC is that we have 6 voters, and this is not representative of the whole industry. If we really decide to go for a different grammar, we should discourage the other uses.

A: My preference is to use the existing the current core. That could save us a lot of work. It certainly works, we use it. Maybe, in other situations where we need multiligual.

Lucía: What is the real use of multilingual translation memories?

D: People are arguing for multilingual use cases. You could save some space.

A: I would argues against multilingual xliff. It is generally a bad idea.

D: One time of exchange.

A: I think that maybe in the past, there was a use a case, but I do not think there is the same need nowaday. What matters is elegance and clarity, with bilingual files, you have the clarity.

D: There was a strong push for multilingual when we created the 2.0, the main reason was under-resourced languages. Would you consider the other options?

A: In xtm, we process terabytes of data and we use the first option successfully.

D: So you do not see the need the necessity of creating another vocabulary.

A: No, I do not. And it would take us months.

D: There are arleady features proposed for the next version. For example: semantic domain for placeholders (owned by Steven Loomis). [David shows the feature traking on the wiki and explains the proposals that are already there: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/FeatureTracking].

A: For segmentation, I would argue that SRX works and it is a good standard and solid. It is not broken.

D: There was interest on Unicode to create a segmentation standard.

A: I have not had a close look at it.

D: I would like to present you with the proposed the features, in case you are interested in any of them if you are going to be back on a regular basis.


A: I would like to update OAXAL with XLIFF 2.0. OAXAL has not been updated since 2008.


-ISO approval

D: Tom, any news on the ISO progression?

T: Time is short, alas.

D: As we are proposing XLIFF for the second time at ISO (the previous one is ISO 217020:2017), we need to reformat to the ISO format and Tom is working on it. I would be great if we have it ready before Christmas.


-Promotion and Liaison

D: XLIFF Symposium in Portugal. We were thinking of if it would be a good idea to have it collocated with LocWorld, but as it is very commercial and less technical oriented, we are also looking into other options. If we want to make the next one successful, we need commitment from people to participate.

L: What are the alternatives?

D: The ideal, would be to gather a good concentration of interested people. I was thinking about Asling, UNICODE, etc.

A: I think Asling idea.

L: me too.

T: CMS/DITA in US in April, Europe in November might be candidates. Many companies cost-justify DITA migration based on reduced translation costs, so there is at least awareness of the issues.

D: TAPICC has donated the extraction/merging best practices. And we could publish it as a note. We had a lot food for though.

L: We need to cover the issue of the charter of the P&L subcommittee before the next meeting (the mandate ends at the end of the year). Only a small aspect should be modified of the current text (information about the symposia).

D: Meeting adjourned.

Owner: Dr. David Filip
Group: OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC
Sharing: This event is not shared to any other groups.
This event is part of a series with 24 more events. The next 4 events in this series:
Tuesday, 18 December 2018, 04:00pm to 05:00pm WET
Tuesday, 15 January 2019, 04:00pm to 05:00pm WET
Tuesday, 19 February 2019, 04:00pm to 05:00pm WET
Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 04:00pm to 05:00pm WET
  • Learn more about subscribing here.
  • View the OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC calendar here.
  • You may receive future notifications with updates to this event. Update the event on your calendar by accepting the changes.

Attachment: ical_46912.ics
Description: application/ics

PRODID:-//Kavi Corporation//NONSGML Kavi Groups//EN
SUMMARY:Regular 3rd Tue teleconference
LOCATION:the usual Skype for Business dial in
DESCRIPTION:Call details inside private AI:\n\nhttps://www.oasis-open.or
 em_id=3663\n\nAgenda: Approve COS02 and request Special Majo
 rity Ballot to approve OASIS wide call for consent for XLIFF
  Version 2.1 COC02\nGroup: OASIS XML Localisation Interchang
 e File Format (XLIFF) TC\nCreator: Dr. David Filip

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