OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

Thanks Christian and Yves for letting me know you cannot attend
on Tuesday the 16th. I wonder if we might want to postpone the conclusion of
our conformance discussion to a date we know the primary participants in this
topic discussion can attend. I think in looking at the minutes, primary
representatives of the various points of view are:



1) Rodolfo (with support for no processing conformance from Arle,
and perhaps Yves),

    (submitted a proposal) 



2) David (with support for document and processing conformance
from Bryan and perhaps Asgeir), and 

    (submitted a proposal)



3) Christian (who defined 

   A. Markup conformance, ranging from n-un which is
"strict markup conformance", to f-e which is "basic markup
conformance"

   B. Processing conformance, ranging from "read,"
"write," "read and process," "write and process")



I think we would be missing an important part of the dialog
without discussing Christian's "Input to discussion on Conformance"
thread (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201010/msg00013.html)



My request to the TC:



1. Please take a look at my characterization of where we stand
on this issue and feel free to offer corrections or clarifications

2. Please let me know if you plan to attend the meeting this
week

3. Please let me know if you agree that while we can probably
move quickly to resolution - based on the ample discussion we've had, we really
need to be sure we have the three primary position owners (Rodolfo, David, and
Christian) on the call to have a rounded representation.



Thanks,



Bryan













From: Lieske, Christian
[mailto:christian.lieske@sap.com]

Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 8:29 AM

To: Schnabel, Bryan S; Yves Savourel

Subject: XLIFF TC Meeting 16 Nov 2010









Hi Bryan and Yves,





 





In case there will be a meeting, I
won’t be able to attend.





 





Cheers,





Christian





 

Hi Bryan, all,

> 1. Please take a look at my characterization of where we 
> stand on this issue and feel free to offer corrections or 
> clarifications

I wouldn't say I'm against "processing conformances". Just that I don't see how that can be completely validated by a process, like a format/syntax conformance, and therefore I wonder if thse processing expectations can simply be at a different level than the OASIS-required conformances.


> 2. Please let me know if you plan to attend the meeting 
> this week

Cannot alas.


> 3. Please let me know if you agree that while we can probably 
> move quickly to resolution - based on the ample discussion 
> we've had, we really need to be sure we have the three primary
> position owners (Rodolfo, David, and Christian) on the call 
> to have a rounded representation.

A quick resolution would be nice.
Tend to agree that it would be nice to have Rodolfo, David and Christian on the call for a decision.

Cheers,
-ys

Hi Bryan,
I already presented my point of view regarding the inclusion of processing expectations in the conformance clause. I personally believe we should not try to comment on application conformance. 
We spent too much time on this issue and there is no need to continue with the discussion. If the majority wants to include processing expectations in the conformance clause, I will not argue.
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya   <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
Maxprograms      http://www.maxprograms.com
From: bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com [mailto:bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:25 PM
To: christian.lieske@sap.com; yves@opentag.com; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] Where we stand on conformance, and how to best resolve (RE: XLIFF TC Meeting 16 Nov 2010)
Thanks Christian and Yves for letting me know you cannot attend on Tuesday the 16th. I wonder if we might want to postpone the conclusion of our conformance discussion to a date we know the primary participants in this topic discussion can attend. I think in looking at the minutes, primary representatives of the various points of view are:
1) Rodolfo (with support for no processing conformance from Arle, and perhaps Yves),
    (submitted a proposal) 
2) David (with support for document and processing conformance from Bryan and perhaps Asgeir), and 
    (submitted a proposal)
3) Christian (who defined 
   A. Markup conformance, ranging from n-un which is "strict markup conformance", to f-e which is "basic markup conformance"
   B. Processing conformance, ranging from "read," "write," "read and process," "write and process")
I think we would be missing an important part of the dialog without discussing Christian's "Input to discussion on Conformance" thread (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201010/msg00013.html)
My request to the TC:
1. Please take a look at my characterization of where we stand on this issue and feel free to offer corrections or clarifications
2. Please let me know if you plan to attend the meeting this week
3. Please let me know if you agree that while we can probably move quickly to resolution - based on the ample discussion we've had, we really need to be sure we have the three primary position owners (Rodolfo, David, and Christian) on the call to have a rounded representation.
Thanks,
Bryan
From: Lieske, Christian [mailto:christian.lieske@sap.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 8:29 AM
To: Schnabel, Bryan S; Yves Savourel
Subject: XLIFF TC Meeting 16 Nov 2010
Hi Bryan and Yves,
 
In case there will be a meeting, I won’t be able to attend.
 
Cheers,
Christian
 

  
    
  
  
    
 My position is
      substantially the same as Rodolfo’s, and I wouldn’t argue it
      either since you are all more invested than I am. (And I should be
      clear that I am not opposed to providing guidance for processing:
      rather I question whether it is an effective way to approach
      conformance verification.)

  -Arle

  On 11/15/10 15:08 , sic scripsit Rodolfo M. Raya:
      

        
        

          
Hi Bryan,
          
 
          
I already presented my point of
              view regarding the inclusion of processing expectations in
              the conformance clause. I personally believe we should not
              try to comment on application conformance. 
          
 
          
We spent too much time on this
              issue and there is no need to continue with the
              discussion. If the majority wants to include processing
              expectations in the conformance clause, I will not argue.
          
 
          
Regards,
          
Rodolfo
          

            
--
            
Rodolfo M. Raya   <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
            
Maxprograms      http://www.maxprograms.com