Regular SC meeting (1st Tues)

1. Please join my meeting, "every 1st Tuesday in month, starting from September 6 at 17:00 GMT". https://www3.gotomeeting.com/join/421352758 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Germany: +49 (0) 898 7806 6464 Ireland: +353 (0) 14 845 983 United States: +1 (909) 259-0010 Access Code: 421-352-758 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting Password: 54321 Meeting ID: 421-352-758 GoToMeeting® Online Meetings Made Easy™ [time chosen based on kick off discussion]

1) Approve SotA Survey Results Report

2) Discuss Relationship with IN!

3) New items?

 Regular SC meeting 7 February 2012

Attendees:

Asanka, Bryan, Joachim Schurig, Lucia, Yves Savourel.

Agenda

1) Approve SotA Survey Results Report

2) Discuss Relationship with IN!

3) New items?

David: I will present the report and we will have a ballot for two weeks to approve it or not as a SC report. If approved it will be publicly available.

David is giving an overview of the document: Different sections, how the data was organised.

Joachim: I personally would not add the raw data but it is fine to have it.

Bryan: we can leave it there so it gives more transparency.

David: is it everybody Ok to me send a ballot about this?

Yves: XLIFF:doc is not compliant with XLIFF, to me this is not an XLIFF file.

David: TC should have a policy for xliff profiling

David: how does it do segmentation?

Yves: It is not very elegant, segmentation through segsource or extensions. In xliff:doc the trans unit is the segment. They also change the meaning of the group element.

David: I think group is already overloaded in 1.2.

Yves: They are changing the semantic of the element and using it in a different way. To me basically changed the compliance, and to me is not xliff.

David: when there was the review, did you tell them?

Yves: sure and Christian too.

Joachim: I don’t understand why they are not involved in the XLIFF TC. We have some members between in our TC. So I don’t understand why they are not completely visible. My suspicion is that they are more about marketing than technology. I am more with Yves' view.

David: I was a little bit disappointed with the infocall, because they had an opportunity to reach the tc, I thought they would come with ideas to bring their features to the standard. I know they say that they are not standard body.

Joachim: the general problem is that the interoperability they promise is only for a very selective range of tools. But besides that, it will be a choice of the other tools to compliance with that, but actually you can’t join.

Bryan: before I go, I would like to say that I agree with the views you are exposing today [disappointment IN! not willing to join TC].

David:  There are two things, we should be happy if somebody is doing XLIFF profiling, but I also agree with you that what they are doing is not basic profiling. What I would do is to write down is to say what is a correct XLIFF profiling, it would be a quasi normative note by the TC.

Joachim: I think that is a XLIFF TC responsibility, who else would that be?

David: It also depends on OASIS.

We should have an official position about XLIFF:doc about their implementation, extensions and solutions. We should give them benefit of parsing their spec. Yves, could you do that, maybe one or two pages?

Yves: Actually, I think the whole document is very interesting and has some very good featuers. And some of the features have already been in the wiki, and I already have given them feedback in other calls.

David: Is there value in doing a small summary?

Yves: I do not know if I can do something, I am very busy.

David: we have Asanka in the call, he has a tool that can assist in XLIFF implementation evaluations..... But yves, what you can do now is to check that all the features in the wiki are there (action item for Yves). We will see if we can take it from there. The most disturbing thing is the segmentation.

Yves: there is another thing, there are problems with white spacing.

David: here is a good example where they made an arbitrary choice, where they could have chosen a solution that is already defined in the standard. Some other tools, such as Swordfish also use the non-standard segmentation. Do you think that the segmentation solution that is being discussed in the sc will be adopted by Rodolfo or Andrzej

Yves: It was extensively discussed with Rodolfo, and it should be OK

David: Any other suggestions for the IN! situation?

Joachim: I would basically ignore them.

Yves: Good point, we tried to contact them.

David: I kind of agree. I would make a last attempt on having some positive outcome of the infocall. Ideally, having somebody from IN! to officially represent their view in the TC.

Joachim: is XLIFF trademark protected, can we prevent them from using it [as a misleading label]?

David: it is actually IP of oasis. I would like to try and avoid open confrontation, If at all possible.

Joachim: I would say that it is a bit immature, they should try to start communicating with others otherwise expect the consequences.

Yves: they put a lot of effort on it, but they could have put it in the TC.

Joachim: they are not the market leaders to make such a mistake.

Resulting AIs:

David: ballot for the report.

Yves: check the xliff:doc, parse it against wiki features, have only a quick first run on it.

David: finalize IN! infocall meeting minutes. Schedule xliff profiling initiative SC->TC.