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/200910/msg00002.html
3/ Face to face TC meeting Munich vs. XLIFF public outreach meeting?, November 17
A. Attendee list
Yes: Lucia, Rodolfo, and Rodolfo
Maybe: Magnus, David, Christian
No (yes to dial-in): Yves, Tony, Asgeir
B. 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
4/ XLIFF 1.2 Errata Status Update
5/ 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}
6/ "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)
7/ XLIFF 2.0
(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking)
8/ New Business
==========
Minutes: Thanks to Dimitra for providing the minutes.
Minutes from XLIFF teleconference, 20 Oct
3/Face to face meeting
Yes: Lucia, Rodolfo and Bryan
No: Magnus, David, Christian
Rodolfo and Bryan maybe should remind the DITA conference organisers to put XLIFF face to face meeting in their programme and agenda. (Christian)
Make the XLIFF face-to-face meeting have public outreach approach instead of being a regular TC XLIFF meeting (Bryan, Christian, Dimitra)
4/ XLIFF 1.2 Errata Status Update
Rodolfo was not participating in the conference and thus we have no updates
5/Canonical representation (3.1.2)
Many abstain votes in the last meeting, it should be further discussed, we didn’t try to put on a roll call.
Extensibility/Annotations (3.1.3)
2 ballots in the last meeting, Bryan asked Christian to discuss the annotation portions, but Christian wanted to wait for Rodolfo.
XML implementation (3.1.5)
The discussion of today’s meeting was mostly about that and the conclusion was that is complex enough and we need more discussion.
Christian described his comments he gave on May 13.
Q2: Yes from Christian and Magnus
Bryan doesn’t find Rodolfo’s comment on May 13 contradictory. To Q4, it doesn’t disallow local ITS markup.
Christian supports having inline markup in one context and other inline markup in another context/scenario. ITS mechanisms, for example, are a good possibility to realise ruby annotations. Support of ITS-generic inline markup should be standalone. Matters arise like which are the standalone entities/capabilities/contents, e.g. language identification, directionality.
Reference for ruby: http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/ (Dimitra)
Bryan has a more clear view about the schema: statement about XLIFF specification or part of the representation guides; going from scope to requirements and matching the requirements of generic markup. We have extensibility points for source and target but not for mrk. Bryan asks if we need a new, separate namespace for text. In-lining is different from XLIFF structure, having in-lining content within target source. Inline markup can be different from XLIFF document.
Challenges in round-trip tool: extensibility, validation points on the schema.
New namespace for pc data, easy enough to call in text, having two smaller schemes in one file or two different namespaces (easier to separate the structure)
Christian: in force format you don’t care about inline markup, mrk differentiates inline. If DITA schema allows, the namespace will be in source, this leads to less conversion effort.
Magnus: In TRADOS there is a plug in for ITS (current version), the process of content is more complex (TM match, etc.)
Maybe follow with an e-mail thread about 3.1.5.
Reinhard Ishida (ishida@w3.org) is a person to contact about the ITS. I ll try to find some documentation about ITS for the people who are not so familiar with. (Dimitra)
Check this: http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/ (under liaisons is XLIFF TC)
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 7 of 40 (17%)
Voting Members: 6 of 11 (54%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 7 of 26 (26%)
Voting Companies: 6 of 10 (60%)
|