October 4, 2011

Attendees

Voting: David, Arle, Bryan, Lucía,

Joachim concluded first meeting towards eligibility

Observer: Yves

Regrets: Peter

0/ Breaking news – not originally on agenda

N/A

1/ State of the Art – XLIFF support in Tools – report on progress and discussion of next setps

Lucía explained the plan to gather data from tool developers to gather their information about XLIFF support.

Discussion on suitable questions and realistic goals.

Bryan & Joachim: Handling of non supported elements should be considered a benign question, safe to be included in present questionnaire.

David: Interoperability matrix is to be done only with 2.0, as we will have conformance criteria

AI Lucía: Finalize the questionnaire and prepare call for participation

DavidF: Input of non-members to be collected through the xliff-comment alias to ensure public audit trail. Lucía will handle it per internal business rule.

2/ Report from Linport Symposium by Arle Lommel

27^th in LUX

http://www.linport.org/linport-s1.html

Ca 40 in attendance, EU institutions, even freelance translators

Open Format for exchange is needed, Alan travelled to Warsaw and spoke to Micah and Sven

A report by Alan Melby can be found on the Linport mailing list: http://box779.bluehost.com/pipermail/linportmail_linport.org/2011-September/000067.html

Continued AI Arle: Report if Overlap arises

3/ Interoperability Now! Report and Discussion

Joachim: Alan did a very convincing presentation, pleading for merger with IN! (TIPP)

 Joachim: Takes on Interoperability Now! Public Announcement

Ontram, Globalsight (MemoQ did not work for some reason). They set up a de facto standard without the standards body. What about updates. Push 2.0? What was the business idea.

David asks Yves about possibleIN! exit strategy? Is it valuable input for 2.0?

Yves answers:

Important to distinguish, XLIFF:doc good input, but breaking normal XLIFF ways. The aim was to be quick. Re TIPP: As opposed to Linport, simpler as it has only part of Linport scope, no workflow associated, doable but not clear..

Joachim: Trados vs. XLIFF TC or other standardization body. They made the mistake to base it anyway on discussion.

They would be better off investing themselves into the TC directly. This is LIOX approach for a reason

Bryan: We would be hard pressed to find a common view towards outside input? Maybe we can find the stand through P&L

Joachim: Question from Arle/not Bryan? How to handle general extra-TC.

Joachim: Encourage joining TC, not embracing the IN! Separate marketing from the technical message

A/ General – resulting from IN! discussion

SC should formulate TC policy for TC engaging with external efforts like IN! or Linport. But important to keep distinctions. Joachim: Things like XLIFF:doc should happen on TC. IN! would have been better invested in the TC.

Joachim: Separate marketing from the technical message.

4/ ETSI ISG LIS Relationship progress

Crovered on TC. Bryan unamiously confirmed by TC as XLIFF TC liaison within ETSI ISG LIS.

Looking forward to hear from Bryan from his first ISG LIS meeting (teleconeference) in early November.

5/ New agenda items and close

Inhreited new current agenda items from TC. State of the Art addressed as 1/

Continue parsing Current  agenda items on TC.

B/Voice of the customer

? Recruit Christian?

AI DavidF to follow up with Christian and Rodolfo, recruit them if possible

C/ Translition of XLIFF in XLIFF

Lucía reports on progress into ES.

AI  Lucía: renew the call

Lucía, Joachim: New item proposed as ongoing item:

Educational and outreach activities.

Meeting adjourned.