Description: 1/ Call one of the FreeConferenceCall phone numbers:
US: (712) 432-1600
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: 0844 581 9102
2/ Enter the Participant Access Code: 737043#
==========
Agenda: 1/ Roll call
2/ Approve September 14, 2009 meeting minutes:
Accept, reject, or amend.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200911/msg00000.html
3/ Some TC members are experiencing difficulty dialing in because of the phone toll
charges with our current system. Are there any toll-free alternatives to FreeConferenceCall.com?
4/ Face to face public outreach meeting Munich, November 17
A. Shall we also have a dial in option?
B. Attendee list
Yes: Lucia, Rodolfo, and Bryan
Maybe: Dimitra, Christian
C. Rodolfo and Bryan met with the event organizers
i. Date and time November 17, during lunch, 13:00 (UTC/GMT +1 hour, assuming no longer daylight saving time)
ii. Lunch provided for conference attendees; non conference attendees can purchase lunch for $20 US, or bring lunch
5/ XLIFF 1.2 Errata Status Update
6/ Review Requirements for inline elements - Goal for today's meeting: clarify the scope and meaning of 3.1.3 (annotations portion); resolve 3.1.5; resolve 3.1.6
(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)
{here's my *score card*:
1.1. Definitions/Terminology
"This section is under construction. " (additional examples have been added)
3.1.1. Common representation of 'inline' markup vs 'block-level' markup
1. [Resolved]
2. [Resolved]
3. [Resolved]
3.1.2. Canonical Representation of native content
[Tabled (minutes: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200909/msg00001.html) "A roll call vote was held and it was agreed that discussion of canonical representation will be kept as a working item for further discussion." Bryan: We have spent many meeting cycles and cannot seem to agree on an answer to the question (with regard to defining scope) "Should there only be one physical representation for a given native representation (wrt codes, inline-markup, 'skeleton' data, sub-flows)?" So I request the interested parties establish a point/counterpoint email thread. When all points are documented I will conduct an email ballot to arrive at a "yes/no" decision - no later than 13-OCTOBER-2009]
3.1.3. Extensibility / Annotations
[Resolved (Extensibility resolved / Annotations unresolved]
3.1.4. [Resolved] Content Manipulation
3.1.5. [Not yet addressed] XML Implementation
3.1.6. [Not yet addressed] General Scope}
7/ "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)
8/ XLIFF 2.0
(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)
9/ New Business
==========
Minutes: Present: Christian Lieske, Doug Domeny, Magnus Martikainen, Lucia Morado Vazques, Bryan Schnabel, Rodolfo Raya, Tony Jewtushenko
Regrets: Dimitra Anastasiou, Yves Savourel
Magnus moved to accept the minutes of previous meeting. Rodolfo seconded and none opposed.
Bryan asked TC members for ideas for changing conferencing system. FreeConferenceCall.com is sometimes problematic. Rodolfo offered to use a GotoMeeting.com account as alternative meeting method.
Bryan updated the status of next face to face meeting in Munich. Lucia, Bryan and Rodolfo confirmed attendance; Dimitra and Christian may attend. The need for a dial in connection in the face to face meeting was analyzed and found as non-essential.
Rodolfo commentedthat the he made good progress on the errata for
XLIFF 1.2 and the document is 50% complete at this moment.
Back to XLIFF 2.0 design, item 3.1.3 from the wiki was revisited. Christian explained that annotation refers to information targeted at human readers, contrasting it to extensibility which he thinks is targeted to processing tools. Standard XML comments would not be good enough, as there is a risk of losing them during processing. Magnus expressed that current extensibility mechanism is rather weak and doesn’t provide all the means required for improving processing. Christian proposed a ballot with two questions regarding the future inline markup specification: “should the new specification outline an extensibility mechanism?” and “should the extensibility mechanism include the possibility to classify extensions in different types?” Two roll call ballots were conducted and the answer to both questions was “yes”.
Call dismissed.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 7 of 39 (17%)
Voting Members: 7 of 12 (58%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 7 of 25 (28%)
Voting Companies: 7 of 11 (63%)
|