[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Meeting minutes
|
Dear all,
Please find below a summary of today’s discussion.
Attendance: Bryan, Rodolfo, Lucía.
I. Administration
L: I second.
R: No objections. Meeting minutes approved.
(Rodolfo shows the changes made in the examples in the new spec)
R: In the example of the translation candidate module (5.1.5). In the previous example, it was “he is my friend”, this has been changed “Paul <mrk id=”m1” type=”mtc:match”>
is my friend”.
I have added another example, (5.1.8), where we have matches that apply to segment. You do not need to modify the source to make a reference to it.
That is the very big change I made.
B: I agree. It makes sense to me.
R: Example 4.3.1 was invalid. The pc element did not have an id. I have fixed it.
R: In section 4.2.3.3, the example was not well-formed. The opening <source> was missing there. I have added it.
B: Good catch.
R: In the section 5.1.8, I added a full example with <unit> with the original data section, we have the full example now.
B: That looks good
B. notes/metadata for all files in a single XLIFF.
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202112/msg00007.html
R: This was pointed out by Yoshito. He wanted to add metadata and notes at the xliff level. I think is a good idea. I am currently duplicating this in each in <file>.
B: Yes, I can see it being useful.
L: Me too.
R: it is not translatable. For me it is fine. I would add it, if you agree.
B: I agree, it seems most useful to have 0 or more notes followed by 1 or more files.
R: notes, metadata and file. For me Yoshito’s request is fine. I will include that in the specification.
R: Roll call. I propose that we include <notes> and <mda:metadata> as a child of the <xliff>.
B: I second.
Votes:
R:Yes.
B: Yes
L:Yes
R: the motion passes.
L: Rodolfo, are you recording the changes that you are making in the new spec?
R: In the Appendix C. We are having general comments.
B: I think we can keep the general comments here.
L: We can do a hybrid solution. We can have all the detailed changes in a document in the
B: I think it is a good idea.
R: Yes, we can do that.
C. Tracked Changes module
D. New steps in 2022. Discussion on the goals for the new year.
I have two ideas to attract more people and feedback to the TC next year, which I think is one of the main issues we are facing.
The first idea would be to invited people that have expressed their interested in XLIFF to our informative meetings. The other idea is to make a public call in the mailing
list and social media to get feedback from the community.
B: sounds good to me.
R: To me too.
G. Test suite correction.
Schematron (update). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uaQ1oSqhXRkRKXNLvgIwcffvNzhcTj9dIkIN__7EH4o/edit
R: I am making changes in the schema as we change the spec. I am not proficient in schematron to fix it. If it does not get fixed, we should remove it from the spec.
B: I see.
L: Meeting adjourned. Merry Christmas. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]