Description:
Please get the dial in information from our private Action Item here:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3663
==========
Agenda:
We will spend this meeting determining next steps, second committee draft public review, or move to candidate draft?
I. Approve 06 December 2016 meeting minutes
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201612/msg00014.html
II. Public Review ended 25 November.
Review Public Review comments in JIRA
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF/
III. Core comments from Ján Husarcík. Perhaps it makes sense to meet on 20th to agree solutions to the core comments:
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-11
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-12
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-13
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-14
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-16
IV. Progress
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-4 seems to be progressing well via online discussion, needs some more spec changes based on latest online discussion.
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-9 needs implemented before we can review it in another meeting or online, but as I said it won't be ready by January 3. January 17 should be doable IMHO and AFAIK.
core comments from Ján Husarcík. Perhaps it makes sense to meet on 20th to agree solutions to the core comments:
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-11
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-12
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-13
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-14
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-16
It is nicely rounded and makes sense to deal with as one cluster of issues..
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-4 seems to be progressing well via online discussion, needs some more spec changes based on latest online discussion.
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-9 needs implemented before we can review it in another meeting or online, but as I said it won't be ready by January 3. January 17 should be doable IMHO and AFAIK.
V. Extend P & L
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201612/msg00025.html
VI. XLIFF SOU Questionnaire Draft
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201612/maillist.html
==========
Minutes:
XLIFF TC Meeting on 17 Jan 17
Attendees: Bryan, David, Felix, Tom, and Soroush.
BS: I propose that https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201612/msg00014.html is the meeting minutes of our previous meeting on 06 Dec 16.
dF: I second.
BS: If no objections, approved.
dF: We could discuss the unresolved issues of XLIFF 2.1 on the OASIS issue tracker.
BS: Good idea.
dF: For now we have issues #11-14, and #15 pending action.
Issue 10 (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-10) is on the validation artefacts. Issue #11 and #13 develop on that.
S: #10 is fixed in the latest updates; it now requires the target element to exist and have content to be checked for inline elements.
Issue 11 (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-11) proposes to enforce target existence in cases, where segment is in other states than default.
dF: Basically, this is an explicit constraint/PR that already follows from the logic. Any comments on this issue?
BS: I would support this proposal, I generally get less errors when targets exist, the ‘state’ condition makes sense.
dF: However, WRT targets in ignorables need to be treated differently. More study required on issue 11 till the next meeting.
dF: do we have a second to explictly state this dependency?
BS: I second
dF: objections?
[no objections]
dF: approved by consensus
Issue 12 (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-12) requires providing a best practice for handling targets of ignorables.
dF: I will propose a solution for this issue by the next meeting, however, solving issue 11 might contribute is resolution of 12 as well.
Issue 13 (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-13) is very close to 11 and will be addressed as agreed and the behaviour of the feature will be described in the prose.
BS: I second
dF: objections?
[no objections]
dF: approved by consensus
Issue 14 (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-14) suggests to explicitly forbid usage of ph element for representation of well-formed spanning codes.
dF: We have the same PR for pc restriction, so I propose to clarify ph usage as well.
BS: I second.
dF: If no objections, approved.
dF: We also need to extend our Promotion and Liaison Subcommittee mandate, as raised by Lucia (https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/email/archives/201612/msg00025.html). I propose to extend it for 2 years. This is a ballot..
BS: I second.
dF: Please cast your vote.
Brian: yes, David: yes, Tom: yes, Soroush: yes, Felix: abstained.
dF: It’s approved and the meeting is adjourned on this.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members
|
| Achieved quorum |
yes |
| Individual Attendance |
Contributing Members: 5 of 33 (15%)
Voting Members: 5 of 8 (62%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Contributing Companies: 3 of 15 (20%)
Voting Companies: 3 of 6 (50%)
|