Description: 1/ Call one of the FreeConferenceCall phone numbers:
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
2/ Enter the Participant Access Code: 737043#
==========
Agenda: 1/ Roll call
2/ Approve Tuesday, 03 November 2009 meeting minutes:
Accept, reject, or amend.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200911/msg00003.html
3/ Announcements
A. Face to face public outreach meeting Munich, November 17, attended:
TC: Lucia, Rodolfo, and Bryan
Guests: Hal Trent, Michael Zwecker
B. Dimitra is conducting an XLIFF questionnaire
4/ XLIFF 1.2 Errata Status Update
5/ Review Requirements for inline elements - Goal for today's meeting: 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]
3.1.4. [Resolved] Content Manipulation
3.1.5. [Not yet addressed] XML Implementation
3.1.6. [Not yet addressed] General Scope
}
6/ In "4. Requirements (Step 2)," we have a series of "Should" statements.
Upon completing "3. Defining the Scope (Step 1)" we should do two things:
A. Review the existing Requirements and come to agreement that
each Requirement is valid
B. Assimilate the results of the Scope section into the Requirements section
(perhaps this step should be done offline by a volunteer, then reviewed
at a TC meeting
7/ "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)
8/ XLIFF 2.0
(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)
9/ New Business
==========
Minutes:
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
false |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 6 of 39 (15%)
Voting Members: 6 of 12 (50%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 5 of 25 (20%)
Voting Companies: 5 of 11 (45%)
|