Dear all,
Please find below today's meeting minutes.
Best,
Lucía
....
Attendance: Mathijs, Lucía, Rodolfo, Yoshito, Mihai (MN). We have quorum.
Administration
R: I move to approve May 6, meeting minutes – https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/meeting-minutes-17
Y/MN: I second.
R : Meeting minutes approved.
Technical
XLIFF 2.2. Committee Specification.
https://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.2/cs01/xliff-core-v2.2-cs01-part1.html
Promotion activities of the new version.
L: I have prepared the template where you contribute to present the new version.
MN: It would be great to have a deadline.
L: What about next meeting?
MN: sounds good.
L: Thank you, you can modify content, style, etc.
Revisit the test suite topic: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/xliff-xliff-22/tree/master/xliff-21/test-suite
R: I am not sure that we should not put our efforts on this.
L: the rationale is to have a list of sample files (good and bad examples) that can be used for validation purposes and to give examples of what XLIFF 2.x. looks like.
Y: When I started adapting XLIFF 2.X,, it helped me to understand what XLIFF was.
R: From what you said, I have an idea. Why don't we extract the examples from the spec?
MN: I want to check if OKAPI have these files. I am curious if they have a copy of these files.
R: But for learning purposes, the examples are fine. For checking validation, the other files are more suited.
M: I did know that these were available. But if I knew I might have used them.
R: we realized that there were issues with the schematron. It can be useful, but there are things that you cannot check, for example, valid language code. And this is one issue that we have in our industry, people inventing language codes.
M: that is why BP47 was chosen.
R: the spec says that we should use BP47, but there is no way to validate it from an XML perspective. I was using this as an example, but there are other items that are difficult to validate. In the test suite, there are examples of elements that are allowed from XML schema point of view, but not from what is described in the spec. Validating XML is not that easy.
Y: Do we want to take some effort to update these files? Or we leave it as it is.
M: I think it would be useful to have the test suite if it is up to date. If I write a parser, I would like to test it against a test suite. In ICU, they have test data. It works when it is there and updated.
M: If it is a lot of work, we can just maintain the valid ones.
Y: Adding the examples to spec, we can automatically include them to the test suite. The changes between the versions. I can provide the samples with the notes changes. The effort might not be that much.
MN: If we do it as we update the standard, it is easier. We updated as we updated the standard.
R: If you want to start working on the examples regarding the changes, that would be a good starting point.
Y: Sure, but for the plural examples. I leave that to Mihai. Do you have a strategy how to create invalid examples?
MN: It is a lot harder.
(Rodolfo shows one of the files from the test-suite that has a reference to a section in the spec)
Y: making references to sections in the spec is not easy to maintain. If we had an anchor there, it might be easier to link.
R: A lot of XLIFF files out there are not even XML valid.
M: I think the valid samples are easier to maintain. We can start with that.
L: I think we can take both ideas: working on new examples based on the changes in the new version and extracting the examples that are already in the spec.
Y: I will try to allocate time and try before next meeting, I will come with a proposal.
New translation memory standard.
R: This is the new point that we will work on. Mathijs if you have any ideas on this topic, we can discuss them at the next meeting.
L: I will send you a doodle to see your availability during the next three months. No new business, meeting adjourned.
------------------------------
Lucía Morado Vázquez
Researcher and lecturer
University of Geneva
------------------------------