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/200904/msg00019.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)
A. Report on the TMX meeting attended by XLIFF TC invitees
B. Christian’s proposal for next steps
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200904/msg00017.html)
C. Adding an adjacent item not included in the list on the wiki page: issues around SUB
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200904/msg00005.html)
D. Asgeir’s thoughts on XLIFF 2.0 in 3D (Testing the friendship between XLIFF and TMX) (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200904/msg00016.html)
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)
6/ Conformance clause
(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#specQuality)
A. XLIFF 2.0
B. XLIFF 1.2.1 (dropped to lowest priority)
==========
Minutes: Present: Asgeir Frimannsson, Bryan Schnabel, Rodolfo Raya, David Filip, Yves Savourel.
Regrets: Magnus Martikainen
Asgeir moved to approve previous minutes, Yves seconded and none opposed.
Yves and Rodolfo summarized the discussion hosted by OSCAR about TMX 2.0 draft. It seems that although TMX and XLIFF share some common formatting for inline tags, the use is very different.
Bryan highlighted that it may be good to use the same formatting in XLIFF and TMX, but OSCAR has not decided yet if the proposed markup will be the final version or if some changes proposed by the XLIFF TC will be included.
Yves highlighted that the key issue to consider are the semantics of the inline tags. If they are the same in XLIFF and TMX, it may be possible to use a common set.
The TC should work on the common requirements and make a concrete proposal to OSCAR, if necessary, for adjusting the final version of TMX 2.0.
We started the discussion of the wiki page that collects the requirements for inline markup. Everybody agreed on the description placed in the overview section.
Convenience of nesting tags was briefly considered. This should be detailed in section 3, the list of potential requirements.
Bryan proposed to modify the title of section three and to add a section with the results of the discussion.
David suggested asking Christian to review section two and check if all its content is included in section three.
Asgeir proposed to consolidate sections two and three, creating a unified list of requirements. He will try to contact Yves and Christian for making together the necessary adjustments to the text.
The need for separate namespace to hold inline tags was considered. Pros and cons of having a specialized schema for inline were discussed. It may be necessary to clarify if the scope is just inline markup or broader model for representing content in general.
Bryan proposed to assign ownership of the wiki page to Asgeir and let him update the page for content model. Asgeir accepted the task and will start a new email thread for discussing the common goals.
Meeting adjourned.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 5 of 37 (13%)
Voting Members: 5 of 9 (55%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 5 of 26 (19%)
Voting Companies: 5 of 9 (55%)
|