P&L SC meeting

Let us talk today about F2F and Symposium based on Kevin's food for thought:

  Completion of XLIFF 2.0:

o   Review any public comments / formulate response or recommendation

o   Plan timeframe and activities between now and release of XLIFF 2.0

·        Promotion of XLIFF 2.0:

o   How should this happen, what are the targets, how will we track progress?

o   Does it need a dedicated subcommittee?

o   How will we collect feedback from industry during 2.0 adoption/rollout?

o   What is needed to create healthy ecosystem around 2.0?

·        Consider certification authority for XLIFF 2.0 compatible tools?

o   Independent body that could certify compliance of XLIFF 2.0 tools, to encourage correct adherence to standard

·        Discuss process for making extensions publicly available and nominating them into the standard

·        Conformance criteria for XLIFF 2.0

o   What/how/when/etc. – I haven’t seen much detail regarding this

·        Future for XLIFF standard

o   Do we need 2.1, 2.2, etc. or do we jump to 3.0? What timeline should we consider for future versions?

o   Brainstorm potential features/direction for XLIFF 3.0

§  Convergence / connection with other standards

§  XLIFF API

Attendees: David Filip, Joachim Schurig, Lucía Morado, Bryan Schnabel, Yves Savourel.

Agenda

[agenda based on Kevin’s email]

David: about the certification, we discussed with Asanka and it can be good idea to have some kind of certification that allowed the tools to claim about XLIFF conformance. This will be one of the topics that will be covered in the symposium. Bryan, do we have a timeline plan for the standard?

Bryan: the argument against having timeframe is that it constraints, the argument in favour is that it gets things done. So we can hope to have all the facts before that and then decide, but I am in favour to have a calendar driven work to have things done.

David: in one week we have the deadline for the comments, we should assign owners to the new comments in the next meeting, and in the F2F we could finish to resolve all the comments. And after that we can have the last public review. So, Bryan, could you arrange a time plan?

Bryan: That sounds reasonable; I am not 100% sure about your vision.

David: the chart flow that is related to the public review and you can see there the different tasks there. I plan to submit by the deadline a proposal for classification for conformance targets, because I keep hearing people talking about certification, but that won’t be realistic if we do not define conformance targets. Basically, the processing requirements need also to target various types of agents, not only documents. I will raise this issue in the following days.

There should be a strategy to have a good 2.0 ecosystem. The symposium would help to this.

Joachim: I think we need to have a position on how XLIFF 2.0 relates to other initiatives like Linport, or TIPP.

David: Bryan proposed how to progress from an extension to a feature.

Bryan: That’s right.

David: It could be good to have a non-normative appendix describing that procedure, or maybe a note. Would you agree, Bryan?

Bryan: I agree, any option (note, appendix or normative appendix) would be valid.

David: I strongly think that we should have a note. Talking again about other standards like Linport or xliff:doc, we should think about having a definition of XLIFF profile.  I don’t see much problem, if 2.0 progresses well, xliff:doc would become obsolete. And I do not see Linport as “dangerous” at all.

Joachim: It is more about the relation with these standards. It is more making sure we are going on the same direction.

David: we should link with Linport. I don’t really see clashes now. We should achieve for XLIFF 2.0 to be recommended payload for Linport.

Joachim: but we should have best practises to avoid overlapping of features.

Lucía: we can discuss this directly with Linport representatives at the symposium.

David: about having a specific 2.0 promotion subcommittee [floated by Kevin]; I don’t think that would be necessary.

Bryan: is the current one only limited about 1.2?

David: No, not at all. The charter says among its main goals is to facilitate 2.0 progression.

Joachim: I don’t think either that we would need a specific sc for promoting 2.0.

David: we can make a new call to the TC to have more people joining the sc.

Lucía: The current sc can concentrate their efforts from now on the promotion of the standard.

David: We can host 3^rd party extensions in the wiki, but we will need some funding if we want to have them somewhere else, like on an official OASIS website.

Bryan: if we have an XML catalogue for 2.0, we can support new proposals and features that can provide their schemas, and we can extend catalogue.

David: this is an excellent idea, to have an extension catalogue, to gather all the existing extensions. Bryan, would you raise this topic as PR comment?

Bryan: I would like to take this cause. I will propose this idea to the TC.

David: It can be used as an informative reference from the normative catalog (because it is not supposed to become stable). Do you agree that talking certification is not timely? We should have a common posture when people ask us about this topic. I don’t think that realistically we would be able to have a germ of a certification tool in the nearest future. The groundwork needs to be done first. The groundwork includes the comprehensive full featured example and a collection of public tests. This all needs classification of agents, so that tools are tested only on what makes sense.

Joachim: the majority of the xliff tc could give a powerful opinion on this.

David: I hope module owners could help us to develop conformance implementation statements to their modules. We should prohibit talks about 3.0, at least in the following 12 months. We should not break compatibility for a decade.

Bryan: I agree.

David: meeting adjourned.