OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

Hi All,   The ISO TC 37 annual meeting takes place in Seoul in mid June. I will be going there as an expert from Ireland's stanard body, NSAI and liaison from the XLIFF TC. I have written the attached report which I would appreciate you looking at and coming back if there is anything you disaprove of.   Jamie, The only contraversial thing in the report is that the chair of one of the sub committees has made comments about XLIFF being part of MLIF which the TC is against. I have commented on this in the paragraph which I copied below: ISO TC 37 Liaison The OASIS XLIFF TC and OASIS were voted liaison members of TC 37 at the end of 2010. We would like to thank TC 37 for this. We understand that the OASIS XLIFF TC will have the responsibility for developing XLIFF and both OASIS and ISO will publish the standard. At the time the OASIS XLIFF TC became a liaison member we were made aware of statements by the chair of ISO TC 37 SC 4 that XLIFF could be incorporated into part 2 of MLIF. The XLIFF TC does not agree with this. If any individual would like to make a proposal such as this they should be members of the XLIFF TC and do so through the XLIFF TC. We welcome the vote to establish a new SC 5 for the translation and interpreting industry and see this as the home for XLIFF within ISO TC 37.   Thanks,   Peter. TC 37 liaison.docx

Hi Peter, > I have written the attached report which I would > appreciate you looking at and coming back if there > is anything you disaprove of. Thanks for sharing the report. It seems some of the statements about what 2.0 will be are a bit premature: "(XLIFF 2.0)... will add some new functionality. The approach being taken is that XLIFF 2.0 will be modular. Tool providers will not be able to create extensions which lead to different flavours of XLIFF. The tool providers have supplied the XLIFF TC with details of the extensions to XLIFF which they have developed and these will be incorporated into XLIFF 2.0 where appropriate." For example I don't recall that we formally decided to not allow extensions in 2.0, or that we decided to incorporate new functionalities, or incorporate some specific tool extensions. I'm not saying 2.0 will not be as you describe, but simply that we are still very much discussing all those aspects (except maybe the modularity approach). Maybe changing most of the "will" by "may" would be more accurate. Cheers, -ys

Hi Yves, I remember that in a meeting after the XLIFF Symposium we decided not to allow custom extensions but I can't tell you when that happened. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com >
Original Message----- > From: Yves Savourel [ mailto:ysavourel@translate.com ] > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 7:53 AM > To: 'Peter Reynolds'; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Cc: jamie.clark@oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xliff] Liaison report for TC 37 > > Hi Peter, > > > I have written the attached report which I would > > appreciate you looking at and coming back if there > > is anything you disaprove of. > > Thanks for sharing the report. > > It seems some of the statements about what 2.0 will be are a bit premature: > > "(XLIFF 2.0)... will add some new functionality. The approach being taken is > that XLIFF 2.0 will be modular. Tool providers will not be able to create > extensions which lead to different flavours of XLIFF. The tool providers have > supplied the XLIFF TC with details of the extensions to XLIFF which they have > developed and these will be incorporated into XLIFF 2.0 where appropriate." > > For example I don't recall that we formally decided to not allow extensions in > 2.0, or that we decided to incorporate new functionalities, or incorporate > some specific tool extensions. > > I'm not saying 2.0 will not be as you describe, but simply that we are still very > much discussing all those aspects (except maybe the modularity approach). > Maybe changing most of the "will" by "may" would be more accurate. > > Cheers, > -ys > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis- > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Hi Rodolfo, > I remember that in a meeting after the XLIFF Symposium we > decided not to allow custom extensions but I can't > tell you when that happened. Thanks for the info. That'll teach me to miss face-to-face meetings :) It's a nice goal I suppose. I'm not sure it's doable, but that is a discussion on its own. I still think the report would benefit from some "may" rather than "will". Cheers, -ys

Hi Yves, I agree with you on the choice of "may" over "will". We started collecting custom extensions to understand what tool developers need in order to contemplate their needs in XLIFF 2.0. If we include the attributes/elements they need in XLIFF 2.0 there would be no reason for allowing custom extensions. Unfortunately, we only got undocumented XML Schemas and no explanation on what tool vendors actually need. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com >
Original Message----- > From: Yves Savourel [ mailto:ysavourel@translate.com ] > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 8:49 AM > To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xliff] Liaison report for TC 37 > > Hi Rodolfo, > > > I remember that in a meeting after the XLIFF Symposium we > > decided not to allow custom extensions but I can't > > tell you when that happened. > > Thanks for the info. > That'll teach me to miss face-to-face meetings :) > > It's a nice goal I suppose. I'm not sure it's doable, but that is a discussion on its > own. > > I still think the report would benefit from some "may" rather than "will". > > Cheers, > -ys > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis- > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Hi All, We've not had an official vote to not allow custom extensions. We've had a lot of discussions about how this would solve a lot of problems regarding conformance. But I cannot recall that we've discussed the implications of removing extensions (for me, I like the idea, but many, many questions would need to be answered first). - Bryan ________________________________________ From: Rodolfo M. Raya [rmraya@maxprograms.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:31 AM To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] Liaison report for TC 37 Hi Yves, I remember that in a meeting after the XLIFF Symposium we decided not to allow custom extensions but I can't tell you when that happened. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com >
Original Message----- > From: Yves Savourel [ mailto:ysavourel@translate.com ] > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 7:53 AM > To: 'Peter Reynolds'; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Cc: jamie.clark@oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xliff] Liaison report for TC 37 > > Hi Peter, > > > I have written the attached report which I would > > appreciate you looking at and coming back if there > > is anything you disaprove of. > > Thanks for sharing the report. > > It seems some of the statements about what 2.0 will be are a bit premature: > > "(XLIFF 2.0)... will add some new functionality. The approach being taken is > that XLIFF 2.0 will be modular. Tool providers will not be able to create > extensions which lead to different flavours of XLIFF. The tool providers have > supplied the XLIFF TC with details of the extensions to XLIFF which they have > developed and these will be incorporated into XLIFF 2.0 where appropriate." > > For example I don't recall that we formally decided to not allow extensions in > 2.0, or that we decided to incorporate new functionalities, or incorporate > some specific tool extensions. > > I'm not saying 2.0 will not be as you describe, but simply that we are still very > much discussing all those aspects (except maybe the modularity approach). > Maybe changing most of the "will" by "may" would be more accurate. > > Cheers, > -ys > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis- > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Hi Peter,   Thanks for this.   I would suggest that the report clearly states to which XLIFF version(s) the XLIFF-ISO relationship pertains. If I am not mistaken, this information is currently missing.   Best regards, Christian   From: Peter Reynolds [mailto:p.reynolds@maart.pl] Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2011 12:33 To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: jamie.clark@oasis-open.org Subject: [xliff] Liaison report for TC 37   Hi All,   The ISO TC 37 annual meeting takes place in Seoul in mid June. I will be going there as an expert from Ireland's stanard body, NSAI and liaison from the XLIFF TC. I have written the attached report which I would appreciate you looking at and coming back if there is anything you disaprove of.   Jamie, The only contraversial thing in the report is that the chair of one of the sub committees has made comments about XLIFF being part of MLIF which the TC is against. I have commented on this in the paragraph which I copied below: ISO TC 37 Liaison The OASIS XLIFF TC and OASIS were voted liaison members of TC 37 at the end of 2010. We would like to thank TC 37 for this. We understand that the OASIS XLIFF TC will have the responsibility for developing XLIFF and both OASIS and ISO will publish the standard. At the time the OASIS XLIFF TC became a liaison member we were made aware of statements by the chair of ISO TC 37 SC 4 that XLIFF could be incorporated into part 2 of MLIF. The XLIFF TC does not agree with this. If any individual would like to make a proposal such as this they should be members of the XLIFF TC and do so through the XLIFF TC. We welcome the vote to establish a new SC 5 for the translation and interpreting industry and see this as the home for XLIFF within ISO TC 37.   Thanks,   Peter.