XLIFF TC Teleconference - Summary
Date: Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Time: 11:00am - 12:00pm ET
=== 1/ Roll call
Present: Asgeir, Doug, Arle, Rodolfo, David, Bryan, Yves, Christian
Regrets: Lucia
=== 2/ Approve Tuesday, 3 August 2010 meeting minutes:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201008/msg00001.html
Bryan moves to accept the minutes
Arle seconds
No dissent
=== 3.1. Updates on the 1st International XLIFF Symposium
Christian: panel for modular/minimal XLIFF
Idea to share: try to take a step forward, get ideas.
Straw-man proposal could drive the panel. E.g. list of modules
Maybe panel could generate list of proposals for the TC
Rodolfo: good idea, better with start with short minimal list of elements, get participants to be active too.
Christian: panelists would be the main speakers, but sounds like good idea.
Rodolfo: need to start soon.
e.g. all bin-related elements should go into a different module, etc.
Christian: yes, good example
Asgeir: good approach, will relate to my presentation too. Maybe we can prepare this off-line before
Christian: yes, need to harmonize
David: yes, that the goal
2 more persons in the panel (Stefan Pries, Friedel Wolf)
Bryan: suggestion: maybe we could also remove some attributes for the minimal list
Rodolfo: maybe a draft could be done.
Yves: good idea
Bryan: minimal/modular different but related
Christian: relationship exists (core module = minimal)
Bryan: helps for conformance requirements too
Christian: please send me input as needed.
Maybe survey after the panel too
Bryan: webinars for panel(s)
Alas the request felt through the cracks because of email problems, OASIS persons not available, and it may be difficult to coordinate
Looking more and more impractical
Maybe a repeat performance of the panel(s) later
Yves: "repeat" of a panel not very doable (it's not a presentation)
Asgeir: maybe LRC will record it, so it may be something we could just play back
Rodolfo: laptops probably used during the panel: GoToMeeting can record it
We did this for the other webinars
Bryan: yes we did this
Rodolfo: we can post this and get comments back
Bryan: need to keep thinking about doing webinars, may help in the future to get people voting during ballot
=== 3.2. Details of our face to face meeting
"Outreach" meeting vs normal face-to-face.
Rodolfo: what about the next day?
Asgeir: that's the first day of the LRC conference
Rodolfo: for the ones not attending the LRC conference maybe
Christian, Bryan: just the symposium for me
Rodolfo: TC working meeting for the next day
Asgeir: could be the evening before is another option
Bryan: no sure about meeting room
Rodolfo: dinner with XLIFF discussion
David: like the day before too. We should decide with doodle, off-line
Can work things out with Lucia and Dimitra
=== 3.3. Move our spec into Docbook (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201007/msg00009.html)
a. Filter current spec into Docbook (Bryan)
--> Not done yet
b. Share in SVN (Bryan, Rodolfo)
--> nothing started yet, will start soon
=== 3.4. Best Practice for dependent files
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201008/msg00002.html
Doug started the discussion
See the note posted
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201008/msg00009.html)
Rodolfo: would every one agree to separate the binary stuff to resolve problem like the one Doug had?
Asgeir: probably worth some more thoughts
Rodolfo: just to get a feel?
Asgeir, Bryan: gut feel is yes
Doug: IMO, binary is not core and can be modularized
=== 4/ XLIFF Inline text SC report
Yves: progressing on the requirements, about 6 left
Rodolfo: we will have probably elements, would we use a different namespace?
Would not like that. Only XLIFF elements in source and target are better
Asgeir: agree, but we'll see that on implementation
Bryan: same here, namespace can be challenging
We need to think about sharing with TMX as well
Rodolfo: names/semantic could be the same
Asgeir: topic of the SC
Yves: yes
=== 5/ Charter
The current charter: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xliff/charter.php
Bryan: had an action item to explore the impact. The discoveries are here:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201008/msg00008.html
Our charter is out of date
Other things missing: No audience, language, not really IPR mode either
No need for all deliverables (like representation guides)
Re-chartering vs Charter clarification.
Both require a special majority vote
Bryan's opinion: our current charter to enough out-of-date to justify a re-chartering
Maybe we can do it once first, then fine-tune it after requirements are all in (clarification)
Rodolfo: yes, out-of-date, but no need for re-chartering
The problem is the same, the manner is different. Same purpose, different means
Re-chartering/clarifying all the time is not good.
We can just clarify.
Doug: IMO, we are just updating the charter, but not rechartering. A clarification should be fine.
David: but they are speaking about scope, and that is changing.
Bryan: a special majority is simply that Mary run the ballot and votes come from TC members only, and with a special percentage.
David: then it's not too bad, maybe then re-chartering then clarifying would be fine
I think scope is changing so it's re-chartering
Rodolfo: deliverables don't count for the scope
The problem (scope) is the same
The solutions are the deliverables
Bryan: we are at the top of the hour.
ACTION ITEM: TC members to look at the current charter and determine if its scope reflect our real scope
And think if it needs re-chartering or not
By email if needed
Rodolfo: I think the scope is the same.
Bryan: still need to complete the different "fields" (IPR, etc.)
And decide if we are expanding the scope in any way
Removing parts would be clarification
Conformances aspects: not sure if it expands the scope or not
David: that would be clarification (new OASIS requirement)
Bryan: we can just re-write it and see afterward if it is a re-chartering or clarification
=== 9/ New Business
None.
--meeting adjourned