Description:
Please join my meeting.
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/905529225
Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.
France: +33 (0) 182 880 780
Germany: +49 (0) 892 2061 159
Spain: +34 911 23 0850
Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 612
United Kingdom: +44 (0) 203 535 0611
United States: +1 (773) 945-1031
?Access Code: 905-529-225
Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting
Meeting ID: 905-529-225
==========
Agenda:
I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)
A. Roll call
B. Approve previous meeting minutes, 07 May 2013 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201305/msg00007.html
II XLIFF 2.0 (0:10 - 0:45)
A. Public review underway (0:10 - 0:30)
1. Announced by XLIFF Admin https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201304/msg00123.html
2. Public review page: https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/30-day-public-review-for-xliff-v2-0
- The public review starts 00:00 GMT on 29 April 2013 and ends 23:59 GMT on 29 May 2013.
- Comments (including those from TC) should be made on comment list
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/
3. Comments will be tracked on the wiki: let's review the procedure for handling comments
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker
- Checklist from Martin Chapman https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/201305/msg00000/xliff_2.0.xlsx
B. Conformance clause/criteria: review ours to ensure coverage (0:30 - 0:40)
III XLIFF 2.X? 3.0? (0:40 - 0:50)
1. Freeze on Feature Tracking wiki? Or queue proposed post 2.0 features there?
1. Do we have an official path for promoting custom namespace to supported core/module post XLIFF 2.0?
IV Charter (Bryan to update site)
V Sub Committee Report (0:50 - )
IV Current Business
V New Business
==========
Minutes:
11 out of 17 voters, quorum (9) reached
Victor Amaya, Helena Chapman, Tom Comerford, Fredrik Estreen, DavidF Filip, Ryan King, Lucía Morado, Michael Ow Ow, Yves Savourel, Bryan Schnabel, Joachim Schurig, DavidW Walters, Asanka Wasala,
[Yves and Lucía late, so had 13 voters later on.]
Bryan moved to approve minutes. Fredrik seconded. No objections
Bryan introduced Martin Chapman, TAB member on behalf of Oracle (Oracle is on TC, so no IPR issue with having Martin as guest).
Martin introduced himself and explained that TAB (Technical Advisory Board) assists OASIS BOD
with the technical material aspect of the TC process. TC admin only review formal aspects of specs.
TAB trying to review content. TAB wants to review 100% of publicly reviewed Committee Specification Drafts.
dF asked Martin to clarify the structure and how to parse the TAB checklist. The understanding is that column C [necessity] signifies potential severity and only matters if the check (in coumn D) was not passed. This was confirmed by Martin.
Martin gave more detail on his review: references, conformance targets
XLIFF conformance targets are document and applications, the spec has no separate section on applications, it mostly specifies the document target. But the roundtrip requirement, that is a conformance requirement targeting applications, introduced only in the conformance section, seems to be clear and warranted.
Backwards conformance SHOULD be addressed in the consformance section.
Martin said that the spec is clearly normatively written, overall above average.
Martin: It is not a big deal, some people work with the ISO set (which is different) and use just natural language capitalization.
dF: Uppercasing or italics? The template we received from TC admin (12 to 15 month ago) enforces italics w/o uppercasing through <glossterm> element decoration and stylesheet.
Martin: I did not pay attention to this because you are consistent, but I will double check with the TC admins if the templates are out of sync. The doc templates I am aware of do uppercase.
dF: Thanks for checking. We should be ableto uppercase via stylesheet once confirmed.
TC thanked Martin and Martin left the meeting.
===================================
TOPIC: Resolution of Public Review Comments
===================================
csprd01 is set in stone (exposed to review on OASIS servers outside our SVN), although we have a copy of csprd01 on our svn, we MUST NOT and in fact cannot chnage it. I will create tomorrow wd02, into which we will be implementing the resolutions. Editors and contributors, do not edit until you have seen my commit. In fact as of April 16, all changes to the spec MUST be based on docummented public review comments.
Fredrik: we should create a tag/branch
dF: We have revision number references but I can create a tag for convenience.
dF to create a tag for csprd01.
dF: I propose that all unassigned comments are assigned to TC owners for resolution by next meeting.
Fredrik: Owners should propose solutions on list, consensus assumed if not contested within a week or so.
Bryan, dF: Sure we will have ballots only in case consensus cannot be reached.
--------------------------------
Bryan goes through tracker, all current comments are assigned as result as follows [skipping previous assignments]:
dF: where? Also it is illustrative (i.e. non-normative and hence editorial) not substantive.
Bryan/Ryan: Towards the end.
Ryan: how do you define fully featured?
Bryan: I mean each feature as tracked on the feature tracking wiki.
Ryan: There should be a full fledged example of core, then maybe one module. And then each module should have its onw, I tried to have examples in my.
Fredrik to drive consensus on TC list.
dF takes 009, 010, change to editorial
Tom to drive consensus on TC list.
This is just renaming attributes for consistency, normative but actually immaterial.
Bryan to drive consensus on TC list.
Quick update on P&L SC by dF: No major sponsor this year except CNGL.
Spread the word, register http://bit.ly/YTDQO7, also register for F2F on June 10 by sending an e-mail to Kevin and myself.
==========
Attendance:
Meeting Statistics |
Quorum rule |
51% of voting members
|
Achieved quorum |
yes |
Individual Attendance |
Contributing Members: 13 of 29 (44%) Voting Members: 13 of 17 (76%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
Company Attendance |
Contributing Companies: 8 of 14 (57%) Voting Companies: 8 of 10 (80%)
|