Description: 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: 1/ Roll call
2/ Approve previous meeting minutes:
Accept, reject, or amend.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200905/msg00008.html
3/ Review Common Requirements for elements between TMX and XLIFF
(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)
4/ "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)
5/ XLIFF 2.0
(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)
==========
Minutes: Present: Magnus Martikainen, Bryan Schnabel, Rodolfo Raya, Doug Domeny, Tony Jewtushenko, Yves Savourel, Lucia Morado Vazquez, Christian Lieske, David Filip and Dimitra Anastasiou (guest)
Regrets: Asgeir Frimannsson
Rodolfo moved to approve previous minutes, David seconded and none objected.
Bryan started the discussion about the content model requirements listed in the wiki. Rodolfo clarified that TMX 2.0 has been withdrawn for the time being, so our focus should be in XLIFF 2.0 only.
David asked if OSCAR is willing to accept the changes proposed for XLIFF 2.0 to be included in TMX 2.0. Rodolfo said that it would be considered, after gathering public opinion via a survey and analyzing tools vendor commitment to support future changes.
Regarding content model scope, David mentioned that it is necessary to consider tag handling when starting/ending tags are in different segments.
Wiki section 3.1.1, item 1 (Common representation of “inline” vs. “block-level” markup) it was agreed to work at segment level, with flexibility to include groups when needed. Rodolfo will expand this section with comments about merging/splitting segments.
Wiki section 3.1.1, item 2 (allow for sub-flows): it was agreed that sub flows will not be allowed as they are now. Yves will add content to the wiki, summarizing the TC’s view.
Wiki section 3.1.1, item 3 (if is discouraged, should specs define what to do?): the specs should, in principle, define how to proceed. Bryan suggested adding a new section about definitions to the wiki, in which sub-flows would be defined. Christian will start it. Yves and Rodolfo will update the wiki regarding sub-flow handling.
Wiki section 3.1.2 (canonical representation of native content): Christian explained the advantages of having a canonical representation. Rodolfo considered this proposal interesting from theoretical point of view, but impractical.
Bryan suggested balloting all topics and Tony agreed. The idea of setting time limits for discussing was analyzed and accepted.
A ballot for defining content model scope (wiki section 3.1.1, item 1) was conducted and passed unanimously. Scope will focus mostly on segments, with flexibility to include groups when needed.
A second ballot about allowing sub-flows in the content model (wiki section 1.1.1, item 2) resulted in 4 abstentions and four negatives. This item will be discussed further before a final decision is taken.
It was not possible to vote about what the specs should say about sub-flow handling (section 3.1.1, item 3). This item depends on the previous one.
Yves requested clarifications about the meaning of canonical representation of native content before voting on wiki section 3.1.2. David seconded and discussion was postponed until the subject is clearer. Christian will add definitions in the overview section.
Call dismissed.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 9 of 38 (23%)
Voting Members: 8 of 9 (88%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 9 of 26 (34%)
Voting Companies: 8 of 9 (88%)
|