Description: US: (712) 432-1600
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: 0844 581 9102
==========
Agenda: 1/ Roll call
2/ Approve September 14, 2009 meeting minutes:
Accept, reject, or amend.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200909/msg00006.html
3/ Face to face meeting Munich, November 16, 17
A. Attendee list
Yes: Dimitra, Lucia, Rodolfo, and Rodolfo
Maybe: Magnus, Asgeir, David, Christian
No (yes to dial-in): Yves, Tony
B. Rodolfo will check with JoAnn about meeting facility in Munich
C. Finalize the date and time
4/ XLIFF 1.2 Errata Status Update
A. Rodolfo will update the required documents and submit them for approval
B. Doug fixed a bug in XLIFF 1.2 Transitional Schema
B. Good news, Schemas, Samples, and Spec are all fixed and ready to be voted on
5/ Review Requirements for inline elements - Goal for today's meeting: clarify the scope and meaning of 3.1.3; resolve 3.1.5; resolve 3.1.6
(come to consensus on the requirements, then assign owners to propose wording for the spec)
(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/OneContentModel/Requirements?action=show&redirect=Requirements)
{here's my *score card*:
1.1. Definitions/Terminology
"This section is under construction. " (additional examples have been added)
3.1.1. Common representation of 'inline' markup vs 'block-level' markup
1. [Resolved]
2. [Resolved]
3. [Resolved]
3.1.2. Canonical Representation of native content
[Tabled (minutes: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200909/msg00001.html) "A roll call vote was held and it was agreed that discussion of canonical representation will be kept as a working item for further discussion." Bryan: We have spent many meeting cycles and cannot seem to agree on an answer to the question (with regard to defining scope) "Should there only be one physical representation for a given native representation (wrt codes, inline-markup, 'skeleton' data, sub-flows)?" So I request the interested parties establish a point/counterpoint email thread. When all points are documented I will conduct an email ballot to arrive at a "yes/no" decision - no later than 13-OCTOBER-2009]
3.1.3. Extensibility / Annotations
[Resolved (assuming roll call vote redo passes]
3.1.4. [Resolved] Content Manipulation
3.1.5. [Not yet addressed] XML Implementation
3.1.6. [Not yet addressed] General Scope}
6/ "XLIFF 2.0 will be complete when _______"
There are two camps for filling in the blank
A. Set a calendar goal. All items that are complete and approved by the
TC make it into XLIFF 2.0 - All others need to wait for the "next train,"
i.e., XLIFF 2.X or XLIFF 3. Special care needs to be taken to define
doneness and ensure no dependency issues between items.
And "XLIFF 2.0 is complete on set date of *Month/Day/Year*"
- or -
B. Define a finite set of XLIFF 2.0 items. Set a cutoff date for adding items.
The list of accepted items becomes our requirements document.
And "XLIFF 2.0 is complete when items 1 through X are finished"
(some in this camp see our current set of goals, as is, as that
finite list)
i. Yves commented that XLIFF is not a software. And we should be careful with releasing versions that do not have some specific features we know will ultimately end up there. (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200904/msg00018.html)
7/ XLIFF 2.0
(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)
==========
Minutes: Present: Doug Domeny, Yves Savourel, Bryan Schnabel, Dimitra Anastasiou, Lucia Morado Vazquez, Rodolfo Raya, David Filip, Tony Jewtushenko, Asgeir Frimannsson, Magnus Martikainen, Johann Roturier.
Regrets: none
Rodolfo moved to approve the minutes of previous meeting. Magnus seconded and none objected.
Bryan summarized the achievements in last meeting discussions.
The face to face meeting will be on November 17, during the morning. Rodolfo will contact the organizers of DITA Europe to arrange the required facilities.
Bryan explained that all corrections to XLIFF 1.2 are ready to be compiled into a new document set. Rodolfo commented that updated specification, fixed schemas and corrected examples are ready and he is working on the document that lists the differences between the original specification and the updated one.
Discussion of item 3.1.3 on the requirements for content model continued. The extension mechanism based on namespaces was discussed. The need to associate notes and context elements was mentioned and a potential solution using an attribute to indicate the connection with a given segment was explained.
Rodolfo suggested adding a note to section 2.5 explaining that extension points are intended for providing support for internal tool processing, not for solving XLIFF deficiencies.
A roll call ballot was conducted on these terms: “A yes vote means that you agree on adding a note indicating that extensions should be used for tool specific internal processing purposes, not for holding localization data that should be supported using standard XLIFF elements.” The motion was approved unanimously.
A second roll call ballot was conducted on these terms: “A yes vote means that you agree that current extensibility options are sufficient and provide a way to exchange in a user friendly way”. The motion passed.
Discussion about annotations will continue on next meeting or via email.
Call dismissed.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 11 of 40 (27%)
Voting Members: 10 of 11 (90%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 10 of 26 (38%)
Voting Companies: 9 of 10 (90%)
|