[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Meeting minutes
|
Hello,
Please find below a summary of today’s discussion:
Attendance:
Rodolfo, Yoshito, Bryan, DavidF, Lucía. We have quorum
I. Administration
R: I second.
L: No objections, meeting minutes approved.
B. Charter renewal.https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202102/msg00002.html
R: I move to have a ballot on this meeting on this topic.
B: I second.
R: No objections. L: Ballot text:
Do you approve the revised charter contained in
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202102/msg00002.html?
Roll call (Yoshito does not have voting rights):
Yes: Rodolfo, Bryan, David, Lucía.
L: The ballot passes unanimously.
R: I will notify Chet our decision.
R: I have made some changes since our last meeting, for example, the information about the data that will be deleted after validation. I have also included the results from the schematron.
[Rodolfo demonstrates the tool with a valid and an invalid file. He shows that schematron does not recognise an error.]
Df: maybe we should lock the schematron if it does not find the errors.
R: The schematron shows as “valid” files that are invalid and the other way around.
Df: the test suit needs work, we have already agreed on this.
Y: Do you have test cases examples? Like in a github repository?
R: Yes, they are the test files, in github.
Df: We never formally release the test suite, so we can make changes in the test suite files and fix the current errors.
R: I am not using all the files in the test suite as I am not using all the modules in my tool.
R: Is anybody willing to fix the schematron?
Df: I will work with the industry stakeholders and I might end it fixing it myself. I will try to make sure that the bugs are fixed.
[Rodolfo shows several files and schematron results and goes through some examples.] R shows how his code work with schematron through the XSL on github.
https://github.com/rmraya/XLIFFValidation And the tool at:
https://dev.maxprograms.com/Validation/
R: These are my findings, David, if you want to keep it, you need to maintain it.
L: Rodolfo, are you planning on making other improvements in the tool?
R: Yes, I would like to fix small things that I noticed, for example, if the files include xhtml namespace, the tool might not accept it for security reasons (the file might be valid),
I need to see how can I solve this and maybe work on a different type of error message for these types of errors.
L: Would you agree to have an announcement and publicly ask for feedback?
R: Yes, I can put a message in linkedin.
Df: I think it is a good idea to announce it in beta state and ask for feedback.
L: David, have you sent Rodolfo the information about the Liaison that needs to be updated?
D: No, I did not have the time, but I will do it.
L: Some time ago, we decided to reduce our meeting frequency to one meeting per month. What do you think about having back two meetings per month?
R: I am in favour of having two meetings per month, so we can report progress earlier and continue working.
B: The mailing list used to be a very good tool to track progress and have good discussions.
Df: I am not sure if it makes sense when we do not have a heavy workload to have two meetings per month. There is a feature in github “Discussions”, that it is really good for technical
discussions better than the current mailing list. But we need to ask Chet’s permission to activate it.
R: Everybody would need a github account.
Action item for David: contact Chet and ask for permission to have the discussion feature active
in our repository.
Df: About the meeting frequency, every now and then I would have a conflicting meeting.
B: I am in favour in having back the two meetings.
Y: I will try, but I am not sure if I would be able to attend the two meetings. L: What if we keep the meeting on the third week as the official meeting (it counts towards voter eligibility.) and the meeting on the first week meeting
as an informative meeting (it does not count towards voter eligibility)?
B: That can be done.
Df: Yes, that can be a good compromise.
R: I agree too.
L: Should we vote on this?
Df: I move to have the first Tuesday of each month as informative meeting (it will not count towards voter eligibility) and the third Tuesday of each month as official meeting (it will
count towards voter eligibility).
R: I second.
Df: Any objections? Motion passes.
II. Where do we go next?
L: We can start a plan to fix the current test suite. When I was testing Rodolfo’s tool, I used the test suite and I created a spreadsheet where I noted the results on each of the files
and if found any additional issues.
Df: that can be used as a starting point. Could you share it in a google sheet so we can all contribute?
L: Sure. I will try to do it by the end of the week.
B. XLIFF 2.2 Discussion.
L: Any new business?
R: I think we need to concentrate on fixing the current work before moving into the next version.
L: I agree.
III. Subcommittee and sister TC reports
L: Meeting adjourned. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]