Description: Live attendees: 13:00 in the Nassau room, Rhein-Main-Hallen in Wiesbaden
1/ Call one of the FreeConferenceCall phone numbers:
US: (712) 432-1600
US: (605) 772-3100
Austria: 0820 4000 1552
Belgium: 070 35 9974
France: 0826 100 256
Germany: 01805 00 76 09
Ireland: 0818 270 021
Italy: 848 390 156
Netherlands: 0870 001 920
Spain: 902 886025
Switzerland: 0848 560 179
UK: 0870 35 204 74
2/ Enter the Participant Access Code: 737043#
==========
Agenda: +++++++++++++++++++++++
Public portion of the meeting:
1/ XLIFF questions and answers / idea sharing - from non-members attending the meeting, to the TC members
Non-public portion of the meeting
1/ Roll call
2/ Approve previous meeting minutes:
Accept, reject, or amend. (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200810/msg00004.html)
3/ Face to Face (including the dial in members) brainstorming session (items maybe not covered in our usual categories, i.e., XLIFF 1.2.1, or XLIFF 2.0 – but things worth talking about). Example, removing format specific clutter from XLIFF 2.0.
** Category 1 Issues: XLIFF 1.2.1 (quick Turn) **
4/ XLIFF 1.2.1 Issues are tracked on the WIKI (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF1.2/Errata)
(Errata page begun by Asgeir)
A. Link updated XLIFF 1.2.1 schemas to this page, and perhaps TC page
i The items to be changed in the new specifications will be discussed in the wiki first.
All changes to the wiki should indicate the name of the comment author.
B. Start an XLIFF 1.2.1 Committee Specification and link it to this page
i Start a draft specification document for 1.2.1 and the corresponding schemas.
ii Rodolfo will create the initial draft, based in current XLIFF 1.2 specification, and
iii Doug will edit and update the schemas to reflect the new changes
iv Doug and Rodolfo will be listed as editors in the new specification document.
C. Proposal to add scope (criteria and due dates) to this page
i 1st CS of 1.2.1;
ii Public review during December,
iii Ready to go standard vote by March.
5/ TC charter may need a review and update (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xliff/charter.php)
A. Mary outlined the criteria for updating the charter:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200806/msg00004.html
** Category 2 Issues: General, not tied to 1.2.1 or 2.0 **
6/ Preparing for a vote on Eric's representation guide (ICU Resource Bundle)
(http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icuhtml/trunk/design/locale/xliff-profile-icuresourcebundle-1.2.htm)
A. Rodolfo to test XLIFF code samples
B. Rodolfo and Eric to adapt the guide to the current templates
7/ Add Rodolfo's concern about Content of element to 1.2.1, or 2.0?
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00011.html)
8/ Semantics on Attributes on Structural Elements (Christian)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00006.html)
9/ Doug proposed discussing the issues raised by Stefan Uhrig
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/200808/msg00001.html)
A. Section 2.5.2
B. Section 2.5.1
C. Section 3.2.1
D. Section 3.2.2
E. schema is too lax in Stefan's opinion
10/ Face to face meeting possibilities
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00008.html)
11/ ITS decorated documents and XLIFF (Bryan)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00001.html)
12/ Rodolfo to invite Translations.com to join the XLIFF TC. He will contact Mary McRae and ask her to invite the company
** Category 3 issues: XLIFF 2.0 **
13/ Asgeir’s tracking details page (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200804/msg00001.html),
(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/Ideas) will serve as documentation for each of the items being tracked on the goals page (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0Goals).
14/ Topics for XLIFF 2.0 (Rodolfo)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200807/msg00003.html)
15/ XLIFF 2.0 proposal: Allow [note] to reference [mrk] (Magnus, Bryan, Doug)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00004.html)
16/ XLIFF 2.0 Goals (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0Goals)
A. Reports from Requirements owners on status of requirement
B. Continue to classify remaining Potential Goals (Must Have, Should Have, Nice to Have)
C. XLIFF 2.0 Requirements Document draft
D. Begin to write the actual "XLIFF Version 2.0 Working Draft" (covered under item 13/ )
** Non categorized **
17/ Reports from liaisons involved with other standards groups:
A. W3C i18n
B. Oscar
C. LRC
D. OASIS DITA Translation Subcommittee
E. OAXAL
18/ New Business
+++++++++++++++++++++++
==========
Minutes: The meeting was divided into two halves. The first dealt was a brain storming session on the future of XLIFF which invited guests attended. The second was a regular TC meeting.
Bryan started the meeting with introductions
Derek Coffey – Welocalize – formerly Transware working on Ambassador
Christian – SAP – Working on XLIFF for some time
Daniel Goldschmidt – Consultant – working on software and Internationalisation
Magnus – SDL – Chief Software Architect Trados
David Filip - Moravia – Works with Milan on XLIFF issues at Moravia.
Peter Reynolds – Consultant – working with XLIFF since the beginning
Tony (on phone) – Consultant and co-chair – working on project and process management consulting
Bryan – Tektronix and Chair – XML architect.
Asgeir (on phone) - Red Hat
Doug
Face to Face Brain storming session
Bryan introduced this session by saying that it was an open session where we could look at what will be in the next version of XLIFF.
Peter said that he would be very interested in hearing what is being done with XLIFF and asked what Welocalize are doing with XLIFF and what their plans are for XLIFF.
Derek explained how Ambassador had become an Open Source tool and the first version of this will be available from January 5th. They are very keen to build a product development group which will include competitors of Welocalize. They see full XLIFF support as the way to ensure that the tool can be used by other tools. Welocalize don’t have plans to build an XLIFF editor but are hoping some other companies will do this. They see XLIFF as being used for B2B transport. Derek mentioned that they also see XLIFF as being used to provide interoperability with other tools.
Derek suggested that XLIFF could be used for reviewing and wondered whether it would be possible to comment. Magnus mentioned that this was achievable today but what was not achievable was using a node and relating it to a specific sentence. Comments are now at the trans-unit level.
Magnus - The plan for level 2 is to make it much flexible.
Christian mentioned that we as a TC are glad to hear what is happening with Ambassador and this would be supported by the group. He also asked what their plans were for the architecture for using XLIFF on an architectural level.
Derek mentioned that they have currently 15 people working on Ambassador and they would like to see a product development as continuing this development.
Peter said that he though the work done by the TC had achieved many of the goals. He suggested that the next step should be to get many software providers could use XLIFF export. He suggested that companies such as Adobe, CMS providers such as Drupal, Documentum and Interwoven.
There was some discussion about how we can attract people in these companies to start using XLIFF. Tony had talked with Adobe who had said they were interested in using XLIFF but not developing it. Bryan mentioned that he had talked with Corel, PTC and others who were all interested in working with XLIFF.
There was some discussion about the level of support for XLIFF within various tools. David said that Idiom had been very clever in how it approached XLIFF. Magnus mentioned that SDL were doing a lot of work with XLIFF at present. Christian mentioned a number of tools which provide XLIFF support including XML:TM.
Derek mentioned that he had presented Ambassador many times recently and he has never been asked about XLIFF.
David wondered why there was such poor support in tools and suggested that this might be evidence that a Public Relations and Implementation effort is truly needed.
Peter suggested that it would be a good idea to have a sub committee to promote the format.
David suggested that this should be done by the TC as a whole and there was no need to create a separate committee.
Christian agreed and mentioned that he offered a number of arguments in promoting XLIFF.
Bryan said that DITA have done something interesting in that they started an implementation committee. He suggested this might be an interesting idea but pointed out we were a small TC and we might not have enough people to have two committees.
Daniel pointed out that there might be different skill-sets need to develop it and promote it. He stressed that as well as promotion we need support from R&D. He also mentioned that for some of his customers XLIFF would be too complex.
There was a brief discussion on minimal XLIFF. Magnus said that the idea behind minimal XLIFF was that you remove the need to support all XLIFF features. Christian mentioned that one of the ways which this could be achieved was through simplifying the schema. Christian suggested that he and Magnus should meet while they are at tekom.
Bryan said he saw the importance of promotion work. He saw that there was a need to have implementation guides, training material, Manuals and help documentation for tools. He raised the issue of whether we want to discuss this further or go on to other topics.
Peter suggested that we have done enough on this topic and could move on to discuss other topics. Christian stressed that we should try and meet some of the tool providers who are here and talk with them while at tekom.
5 minute break
Official XLIFF meeting
Roll Call -
Christian, Magnus, David, Peter, Tony , Bryan, Asgeir , Doug
Bryan moved that the minutes were the correct meeting of the last meeting. This was seconded by Doug.
Bryan suggested that the attendees should say which items they want to discuss.
Magnus mentioned a number of items he would like to discuss this would include comments, revision history, version control
Asgeir asked whether it was possible to have version control and change tracking a more granular level. Magnus said he would like to be able to mark up who changed a particular segment and when it was changed. He also said that the extension points are great but he would like to see more them. Bryan raised the bold idea of having extension points for every element. Magnus mentioned that this would not be possible for inline elements and nodes. Doug suggested that it was possible to have more extension points providing they were other namespaces. Tony mentioned that the reason we decided against doing this was so that XLIFF would not become so customisable that it became useless.
Christian wondered whether there may be an XML vocabulary for comments and change control which could be used to implement some of the functionality which Magnus wanted.
Magnus mentioned that there is some cool functionality on workflow with the phase element but there is no explanation as to how to use this.
Bryan mentioned that while Doug has done a lot of very good work as schema writer but does not have the band width to continue. Bryan asked for volunteers. Asgeir agreed that he could do this. Bryan mentioned that we would like to quickly finish 1.2.1 and Doug and Rodolfo would work on this to finish this and then Doug would pass over to Asgeir.
There was general support for Magnus’ proposal on comments. Christian asked whether this would allow for comments on comments.
Magnus asked Doug whether a more modular approach would be positive or negative. Christian mentioned that ITS used one common source for generating the schema and the specification. He will take this as an action item.
Christian and Magnus are going to meet today to discuss some of the ideas they have. We will also be going to meet some of the people who we would like to promote XLIFF to.
Christian raised Item 9 and 8 and wondered whether these were categorized wrongly and whether they were candidates for 1.2.1 or not. Doug has already replied to some of the concerns which Stefan had. Doug agreed that these were candidates for 1.2.1 and Doug has already done some of the work on this.
Closing comments
Bryan thanked everyone for attending.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 7 of 37 (18%)
Voting Members: 7 of 11 (63%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 7 of 26 (26%)
Voting Companies: 7 of 11 (63%)
|