OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

 View Only

  • 1.  Changes in feature wiki structure? was: Re: [xliff] Y21 - Term proposals

    Posted 11-27-2012 10:34
    Yves, Bryan, I do not think features should be ever commented out. Keeping publicly parse-able history is important for our transparency. In my view, we have this feature, the feature just got dissolved among other features, Annotations, ITS mapping, and glossary mechanism. I would propose to move it to Section 3 with the explanation that it is not needed as standalone, because it got covered by annotations, ITS support and glossary. BTW, all of these need more work to work at and to support the term proposals. I tend to think of managing term proposals as a use case for the above features. If this view ever changes, Yves or a new owner will be always able to reintroduce a 2.x approved feature ballot. BTW, as we are now close to 2.0 I think of face lifting the process including the wiki sections, so that we can discern between really rejected features and features just parked for a 2.x version. I think that this is a meaningful difference that would help us parsing. If this was realized as splitting of section 3 into two subsections, we would not need even to change the process, because the procedure for moving something back for 2.x would remain the same. I personally do not care for the label, it is not a prison as there is no prison term, we can call it Parking Lot as well :-) but it does not change the semantics given by our understanding and usage. Cheers dF Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC CNGL LT-Web CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Schnabel, Bryan S < bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com > wrote: Makes sense. Just as a housekeeping question, I noticed that rather than moving this item to section 3 in the wiki, you commented it out of section 2. I'm wondering (out loud, and to everyone on the mailing list) if commenting out a proposed feature from section 2 is preferred, or if it might be better to move it to section 3, in the interest of keeping its history? I wonder if section 3's "Discarded Proposed Features" title wording has too negative a connotation?


  • 2.  RE: Changes in feature wiki structure? was: Re: [xliff] Y21 - Term proposals

    Posted 11-27-2012 12:23
    sure.   From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:33 AM To: Schnabel, Bryan S Cc: Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Changes in feature wiki structure? was: Re: [xliff] Y21 - Term proposals   Yves, Bryan, I do not think features should be ever commented out. Keeping publicly parse-able history is important for our transparency. In my view, we have this feature, the feature just got dissolved among other features, Annotations, ITS mapping, and glossary mechanism. I would propose to move it to Section 3 with the explanation that it is not needed as standalone, because it got covered by annotations, ITS support and glossary. BTW, all of these need more work to work at and to support the term proposals. I tend to think of managing term proposals as a use case for the above features. If this view ever changes, Yves or a new owner will be always able to reintroduce a 2.x approved feature ballot.   BTW, as we are now close to 2.0 I think of face lifting the process including the wiki sections, so that we can discern between really rejected features and features just parked for a 2.x version. I think that this is a meaningful difference that would help us parsing.   If this was realized as splitting of section 3 into two subsections, we would not need even to change the process, because the procedure for moving something back for 2.x would remain the same. I personally do not care for the label, it is not a prison as there is no prison term, we can call it Parking Lot as well :-) but it does not change the semantics given by our understanding and usage.   Cheers dF Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC CNGL LT-Web CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Schnabel, Bryan S < bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com > wrote: Makes sense. Just as a housekeeping question, I noticed that rather than moving this item to section 3 in the wiki, you commented it out of section 2. I'm wondering (out loud, and to everyone on the mailing list) if commenting out a proposed feature from section 2 is preferred, or if it might be better to move it to section 3, in the interest of keeping its history? I wonder if section 3's "Discarded Proposed Features" title wording has too negative a connotation?
    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: [xliff] RE: Changes in feature wiki structure? was: Re: [xliff] Y21 - Term proposals

    Posted 11-27-2012 14:39
    David, all, I agree. It should not be difficult to sub-divide section 3 as proposed below. I'll do my best to make that adjustment today. Thanks, Bryan ________________________________ From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] on behalf of Yves Savourel [ysavourel@enlaso.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:22 AM To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [xliff] RE: Changes in feature wiki structure? was: Re: [xliff] Y21 - Term proposals sure. From: Dr. David Filip [ mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie ] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:33 AM To: Schnabel, Bryan S Cc: Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Changes in feature wiki structure? was: Re: [xliff] Y21 - Term proposals Yves, Bryan, I do not think features should be ever commented out. Keeping publicly parse-able history is important for our transparency. In my view, we have this feature, the feature just got dissolved among other features, Annotations, ITS mapping, and glossary mechanism. I would propose to move it to Section 3 with the explanation that it is not needed as standalone, because it got covered by annotations, ITS support and glossary. BTW, all of these need more work to work at and to support the term proposals. I tend to think of managing term proposals as a use case for the above features. If this view ever changes, Yves or a new owner will be always able to reintroduce a 2.x approved feature ballot. BTW, as we are now close to 2.0 I think of face lifting the process including the wiki sections, so that we can discern between really rejected features and features just parked for a 2.x version. I think that this is a meaningful difference that would help us parsing. If this was realized as splitting of section 3 into two subsections, we would not need even to change the process, because the procedure for moving something back for 2.x would remain the same. I personally do not care for the label, it is not a prison as there is no prison term, we can call it Parking Lot as well :-) but it does not change the semantics given by our understanding and usage. Cheers dF Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC CNGL LT-Web CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie< mailto:david.filip@ul.ie > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Schnabel, Bryan S <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com< mailto:bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com >> wrote: Makes sense. Just as a housekeeping question, I noticed that rather than moving this item to section 3 in the wiki, you commented it out of section 2. I'm wondering (out loud, and to everyone on the mailing list) if commenting out a proposed feature from section 2 is preferred, or if it might be better to move it to section 3, in the interest of keeping its history? I wonder if section 3's "Discarded Proposed Features" title wording has too negative a connotation?
    Original Message


Related Content