[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Meeting minutes - 20 February
|
Dear TC members, You can find below the meeting minutes of the last TC meeting (20 February). Best regards, Lucía
Attendance: Lucía, Rodolfo, Yoshito, Mihai.
We have quorum.
Administration
I move to approve Feb 6 meeting minutes -
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202402/msg00004.html
Y: I second.
R: Meeting minutes approved.
Technical
-Spec update status – Rodolfo.
R: I have merged the changes applied by Mihai and created a new version of the spec.
-Remaining items before XLIFF 2.2 public review?
M: Capitalisation issues mentioned by Lucía. I applied all except the first one as we had to decide between upper or lowercase. I would use uppercase when it refers to “Machine Translation”. Personally, if it is
in the middle of a sentence and it does not refer to specific section, I would leave it as lowercase. If it references to “Machine Translation”, I would leave it in uppercase.
Y: In this case (table 3), it is a specific case. There are cases where we have MT and others Machine Translation.
R: Can you handle that, Mihai?
M: Yes, I can.
R: I have also to doublecheck the previous issue that Lucía included in November about the typos, I am not sure if all the changes were implemented.
R: Today, I have closed some open issues: 31 (we have already changed that), and 18. I have verified the spec and updated the schema. It is implemented in the spec and in the schema and it is noted on the schema.
R: Issue 25. What happened to that one, Yoshito?
Y: It was long ago, let me remember.
R: We agreed that your proposal was interesting, and you proposed two options. We have not decided on which one to apply.
Y: As it is, we do not have a description of the resource item element <resourceItem>. We would like to attach some description. One option is to include an attribute “description”, the second option would be to use
a generic mechanism like “notes”. I do not have a strong opinion. But maybe “notes” might be more consistent. But from the implementers point of view, the first option might be the best one.
R: For consistency it is true that notes would be better, although implementing an attribute would be easier.
L: what you are proposing it is similar to the “alt” attribute for describing images in html?
Y: Yes, it is. Sometimes you have ten screenshots attached, but you do not have a description, it can be confusing.
M: I wonder if the notes have a category type of thing. The “ref” can be used to have urls and things like that.
R: The problem with using “notes” is that you can have more than one, with an attribute it would be unique.
Y: Notes have more flexibility.
M: The other thing we use in our company is examples. “Hello X. X is the name of the person, Hello, María.”
R: For simplicity I would use an attribute. For flexibility I would use notes.
Y: Yes, notes could give us more possibilities.
M: I would go for notes, as it is already implemented in tools.
Y: Yes, notes would be better.
L: lets do a roll call to vote on the preferred solution.
Roll call. Do we agree to use notes in the <resourceItem> element?
Yes: Rodolfo, Mihai, Yoshito, Lucía.
Y: should I commit the changes?
R: Yes, and I will include the changes in the new merged version.
R: My issue in appendix C. I do not think we have to include the date every time we mentioned a change.
L: I insisted on having that to have a transparency policy of explaining when each decision was made.
Y: We could include the github issue.
L: What was done in the past?
R: No dates were mentioned before.
R: It does not matter when we approved the new module, what it matters is when the new spec is approved with the new module. If you agree I can remove them.
L: I do not oppose to that as long as it is kept somewhere for future reference.
R: It is in all the previous version of this document.
L: Ok, then.
L: To recap, if we implement the changes that were mentioned and approved today, are we ready to request the public review?
R: Yes.
L: Perfect, we could wait until next meeting to do the request as they are doing the platform migration this week.
R: Yes, we should wait until the new platform is running.
Promotion and Liaison
-MessageFormat WG There is an open session, where the work of the technical committee will be presented. Last week, we had an intensive week of three hours per day. Y: When are the implementation being released?
M: In March. R: TC liaisons, we need to update the information that is there.
L: You can go ahead and change the information on the MeggageGroup Liaison, if Mihai agrees. M: It is fine with me. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]