Dear all,
Plase find below a summary of the last meeting's discussion (15 October).
Best,
Lucía
Attendance: Rodolfo, Yoshito, Lucia. We have quorum
Administration
L: I move to approve October 8, meeting minutes – https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/meeting-minutes-8
R: I second.
L: Meeting minutes approved.
Technical
XLIFF 2.2 public review. https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/invitation-to-comment-on-xliff-v22-csd01-1
[Rodolfo explains the comments that we received since last meeting, last week]See additional comments that we received: : https://groups.oasis-open.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer?CommunityKey=f7b70a54-5dd7-4ea9-9d6f-018dce262ff9
https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/comment-on-xliff-v22-csd01-compact-form-non-xliff R: I understood what Mihai was trying to do. But apparently people did not, so either we explain that is pseudo code or we switch to pure xliff code.
L: Do editorials changes imply another public review?
R: Yes, they do.
R: one of the comments mentions some typos that need to be fixed.
L: The good thing is that we received attention. Even if we need to have another public review. The new version would be better and clearer for the public thanks to the comments received.
R: I prefer to have a version with all these issues solved. It would improve the final product, waiting another month is not a big issue.
Comment: https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/comment-on-xliff-v22-csd01-497-preventing-segmentation-modification-for-pgs
L: that refers to PGS, Mihai said he would send us his answers if he cannot get access to the mailing list.
Y: I am thinking about practical cases.
R: Forget about plural. In general, the problematic is the same. I do not think we should recommend locking segmentation.
Y: I do not know how tools can handle it. I do not know that the best practice might be.
R: This module would make the tools more complications if they want to implement them. But there is no obligation to implement modules.
Y: I think we can stay with the current spec.
R: Yes, I agree. We stay with the general processing requirements.
Y: Is this a consensus in this TC?
R: Yes.
L: Me too.
Rodolfo shows another of the comments received: https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/comment-on-xliff-v22-csd01-general-impression
R: This is a problem of the tool implementing it.
Y: We have an algorithm to solve this issue. Mihai explained how to solve this problem.
R: Yes, and he used pseudo code to explain it. I think that the problem is that they did not understand how to merge it. I do not really understand what they want.
Y: Merging is pretty straightforward.
R: They did not include the tags in the example, but they wanted to merge the tags.
Y: This is what we call select format.
Y: the example is not very good, why do you use the plural format here.
R: I completely agree with you.
------------------------------
Lucía Morado Vázquez
Researcher and lecturer
University of Geneva
------------------------------