OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  Meeting minutes

    Posted 08-20-2024 15:34

    Dear all,

    Please find below today's meeting minutes.

    Best,

    Lucía

    ....

    Attendance: Yoshito, Rodolfo, Lucía, Mihai. We have quorum.

    Administration

    I move to approve to approve  August 6 meeting minutes - https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/meeting-minutes-5

    Y/L: We second.

    R: Meeting minutes approved.

        XLIFF 2.1 published by ISO - https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/xliff-21-published-by-iso  &   https://www.iso.org/standard/87344.html

    R: Do you want to make an announcement?

    L: Do you know if the ISO group made an announcement?

    R: No, they did not. We can make an announcement in our TC webpage and then announce it elsewhere (e.g. XLIFF group in Linkedin)

    L: that sounds like a good idea.

    R: Ok, I will do it.

    L: Thank you, Rodolfo.

    R: I think the xliff linkedin group is not open to the public.

    L: I will check the linkedin xliff group and see if I can make it public.

    Technical

    New updates for XLIFF 2.2 specs. https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/new-updates-for-xliff-22-specs & https://github.com/oasis-tcs/xliff-xliff-22/tree/master/xliff-22

    Remaining items before XLIFF 2.2 public review.

    R: Mihai, have you reviewed the latest version of the documents with the new template?

    M: I reviewed it. I followed the technical changes. It looks good.

    R: are we ready to submit for public review?

    M: I believe we do.

    L: I move to conduct a roll call to vote on these last version of the specification:

    R: I second.

    Roll call:

    Do you approve to release XLIFF Version 2.2 Working Draft 01 from 18 July 2024 and all associated artifacts available at https://groups.oasis-open.org/higherlogic/ws/public/document?document_id=72149&wg_id=3d0f1f56-8477-4b53-9b14-018dc7d3eecf  as a Committee Specification Draft, designating the html version of the specification as authoritative and releasing the Committee Specification Drafts for a 30 days public review?

    Yes: Mihai, Yoshito, Lucía, Rodolfo.

    L:  The vote passes unanimously. We will contact Kelly so we can move things forward with the public review.

    R: and then we wait for her to make the announcement to initiate the public review.

    Other topics:

    Y: I would like to bring a topic,  I am just curious if we need guidance about a new standard that will replace TMX. Transforming XLIFF into TMX is kind of ugly. Specially when inline tags are involved, this does not fit very well with traditional TMX.

    R: I see your point and this have been mentioned several times. I actually wrote tmx 2 but LISA went bankrupt, the idea was to make inline compatible between both standards. A solution for that problem would be to use the match module as standalone. We can promote that. We do not have a file format to store just matches. But if we could create something to store tm data that is compatible regarding tags with XLIFF. The only problem I see with that some customers are using TMX because is multilingual instead of bilingual as XLIFF is. We could use a way of making it multilingual.

    Y: I am not sure how module would work in that context. From the point of the use of TMX, inline tags sometimes are not important (for example, layout information like bold).

    R: In those cases, we could just having a placeholder without the information.

    R: A new format that replaces TMX but is compatible with XLIFF that can regenerate a file that can be reused. I like the idea.

    Y: We use OKAPI, input files that are in html or dita or other formats, the ids in inline tags are generated by OKAPI, these ids are not relevant from the TMX point of view of use. In our system we do not use any standard format, just a database but we try to normalize them.

    M: the id depends on the original format. They might be important for leveraging.

    Y: we keep normalized id. We do not use TMX at all, it is so difficult to adapt it to XLIFF that we discard its use. what about if we come with another standard that would replace TMX based on XLIFF 2? Not only would be more compatible but it might be easier to adopt it.

    R: Yes, and we can also publish a converter from TMX and XLIFF. I like the idea.

    M: we can even use the XLIFF namespace.

    R: we can reuse all the inline tags.

    M: when we send XLIFF translation, when they want the memory, I will send the XLIFF.  To make sure that is compatible.

    R: I use that trick in my tool, because it also allows me to provide 100% matches.

    L: I really like the idea. I will check the charter for next meeting.

    R: (Rodolfo shows the current charter) it is within the scope of the charter.

    L: No more new business. Meeting adjourned.



    ------------------------------
    Lucía Morado Vázquez, PhD
    Researcher and lecturer
    University of Geneva
    ------------------------------