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/200807/msg00009.html)
3/ Announcements
A. XLIFF/DITA joint webinar scheduled (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00003.html)
** Category 1 Issues: XLIFF Point Release vs. Errata **
4/ XLIFF 1.2.1 (point release) vs. Errata
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00005.html)
To summarize the reply we got from Mary McRae:
In cases where there is ambiguity between spec and schema,
errata may be enough. In cases where there is contradiction
between spec and schema, change is substantive and the possibility
of preparing an errata is eliminated. Since the latter condition
applies to us, we must reconcile the differences, fix any bugs,
and create a new release.
A. Tony's excellent advice is that we absolutely, and aggressively limit the scope
B. Asgeir's excellent work at cataloging the bugs and discrepancies (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF1.2/Errata) as the place where we begin to define the scope of a point release.
5/ TC charter may need a review and update (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xliff/charter.php)
A. Mary outlined the criteria for updating the charter: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200806/msg00004.html
** Category 2 Issues: General, not tied to 1.2.1 or 2.0 **
6/ Preparing for a vote on Eric's representation guide (ICU Resource Bundle)
(http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icuhtml/trunk/design/locale/xliff-profile-icuresourcebundle-1.2.htm)
A. Rodolfo to test XLIFF code samples
B. Rodolfo and Eric to adapt the guide to the current templates
7/ "none of the market leader TenT companies has signed on to the XLIFF standard" (XLIFF ISO)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200807/msg00020.html)
8/ Semantics on Attributes on Structural Elements (Christian)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00006.html)
9/ Doug proposed discussing the issues raised by Stefan Uhrig
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/200808/msg00001.html)
A. Section 2.5.2
B. Section 2.5.1
C. Section 3.2.1
D. Section 3.2.2
E. schema is too lax in Stefan's opinion
10/ ITS decorated documents and XLIFF (Bryan)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00001.html)
** Category 3 issues: XLIFF 2.0 **
11/ Asgeir created a robust tracking mechanism (a syndication page) for XLIFF 2.0 ideas (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200804/msg00001.html), (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/Ideas/MyIdea) - perhaps we should consider this vs. our current tracking page. Should we consolidate them? Or do they serve unique purposes?
12/ Topics for XLIFF 2.0 (Rodolfo)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200807/msg00003.html)
13/ XLIFF 2.0 proposal: Allow to reference (Magnus, Bryan, Doug)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00004.html)
14/ XLIFF 2.0 Goals (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0Goals)
A. Reports from Requirements owners on status of requirement
B. Continue to classify remaining Potential Goals (Must Have, Should Have, Nice to Have)
C. XLIFF 2.0 Requirements Document draft
D. Begin to write the actual "XLIFF Version 2.0 Working Draft"
** Non categorized **
15/ Reports from liaisons involved with other standards groups:
A. W3C i18n
B. Oscar
C. LRC
D. OASIS DITA Translation Subcommittee
E. OAXAL
16/ New Business
+++++++++++++++++++++++
==========
Minutes: Roll call
Attending: Tony, Doug, Asgeir, Tony, Milan, Christian, Magnus, Rodolfo, Bryan, Andzrej, Peter
As Rodolfo was not on the call, Tony volunteered to take minutes.
Approved previous meeting minutes:
Andzrej Approved, Asgeir, Seconded following minutes as official record: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200807/msg00009.html
Bryan described the categorization of the meeeting. Category 1: XLIFF 1.1x release; category 2: General Issues; Category 3: XLIFF 2.0
Bryan announced XLIFF/DITA joint webinar scheduled (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00003.html). Have business track & technical track.
** Category 1 Issues: XLIFF Point Release vs. Errata **
- XLIFF 1.2.1 (point release) vs. Errata
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00005.html)
Bryan discussed What do we as a committee want to do with all the discrepencies between schema & spec? Decided that Spec would always be correct and schema would have to be chnaged to match specification. Found a few issues however, that highlighted where schema is better - pinged Mary from OASIS for her opinion:
In cases where there is ambiguity between spec and schema, errata may be enough. In cases where there is contradiction between spec and schema, change is substantive and the possibility of preparing an errata is eliminated. Since the latter condition applies to us, we must reconcile the differences, fix any bugs, and create a new release.
A. Tony's excellent advice is that we absolutely, and aggressively limit the scope
B. Asgeir's excellent work at cataloging the bugs and discrepancies (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF1.2/Errata) as the place where we begin to define the scope of a point release.
Tony rehashed his opinion and suggested that we consider creating a 1.1.2 / Bugfix Subcommittee. Peter suggested creating a subcommittee where everyone is a member automatically. Asgeir suggested it would be preferable to issue errata rather than a point release. Tony suggested that there are substantive issues- not just some typos or basic logic problems.
Issue can be decided with roll call vote.
Andzrej moved to start working on 1.2.1 to fix bugs and 2.0 as separate concurrent goals.
Asgeir said concerned with 1.2.1 overtaking 2.0 work.
Tony suggested one of 3 options:
Option 1: dedicate a set time of meeting to 1.2.1
Option 2: expand meeting instances to bi-weekly
Option 3: work on 1.2.1 issues in a separate SC meeting (assumes SC meets other than the usual Tuesday meeting).
Some discussion ensued - some thought an SC was the right approach, Tony suggested unless have some committment which would be unlikley in an SC. So Tony suggested that the 1.2.1 work should be done in TC meeting without a new SC created so that a quorum would be required to conduct business.
Asgeir seconded motion to have bimonthly meeting - alternate between 2.0 and 1.2.1 with explicit date set for 1.2.1.
Role call: Doug: Y, Milan: Y; Peter: Y; Tony: Y, Christian: Y; Magnus: Y, Bryan: Y.
Motion passed.
Next discuss timing. Bryan noted that Asgeir was keeping good track of the issues, and Doug was dealing with the problems.
Bryan suggested 1.2.1 could be completed within 3 month.
Tony suggested December for 1st CS of 1.2.1; Public review during December, and ready to go standard vote by March.
Bryan thanked everyone for patience and contributions.
Bryan asked if next meeting should be 1.2.1 - team agreed to meeting focused on 1.2.1 and no objections. Next meeting date will be decieed as a ballot - either in 2 weeks or hold on regular meeting then move from then onward to bi-weekly meetings.
Meeting was adjourned.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 9 of 35 (25%)
Voting Members: 8 of 10 (80%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 9 of 25 (36%)
Voting Companies: 8 of 10 (80%)
|