- We consider comments of the public review 1 to be frozen; the comments for the public review 2 are active but we are not accepting any new comments;
DavidF:
- I added a comment today, it came from the admins; those are really minor issues; I added them as 146.
Bryan:
- It was listed as 24 September.
- We will need to triage each of these comments; comments 100-111 have been already triaged in the 1st meeting in September;
DavidF:
- I did some filtering on the items; I have made a few groups of “editorial” and “minor fixes” that I believe we could approve in one go. I think these can be summery approved.
* Minor editorial changes - owned by David: 102, 110, 116, 124, 128, 133, 135, 136, 146
* Typos - owned by Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125
* Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145
* Example fix - owned by Bryan: 134
Yves:
- What do you mean by approved? Did you make the changes?
DavidF:
- I called them editorial changes; they can be fixed as suggested.
Bryan:
- What are you asking us to approve?
DavidF:
- I am proposing to approve (the above listed) the comments to be fix as suggested;
Bryan:
-You are proposing that we accept those proposed solutions by the commenters, as approved by the TC. I will second that.
- Tom may need to leave early; will it affect the quorum?
DavidF:
- No
DavidF:
- Proposal: I move to approve the above comments as editorial changes, to be fixed as suggested by the commenters.
Bryan:
- Seconds the proposal.
Yves:
- Some of those comments have no suggestion; for example 102, there is no wording corresponding to any suggestion.
DavidF:
- Yes. There is no wording, it is just a clarification.
Yves:
- I've seen clarifications leading to problems. I'd like to see the actual wordings.
DavidF:
- Let's take out 102 then.
Bryan:
- Are there any others that belong to the same category?
Yves:
- I don't know. I didn't get a chance to have a look everything;
Bryan:
- Shall we quickly go through each of these?
DavidF:
- I wouldn't go through the Typos
Bryan:
- I agree.
DavidF:
- 134 is an example fix;
Bryan:
- I agree; we would change the <x> to <ph> and we would make sure that the <ph> has the required id attribute.
DavidF:
- Next is 110: xml:space; I am happy to fix it as suggested.
Yves:
- There is no specific suggestion;
DavidF:
- What it basically says is that it should have the link, and the link is a normative link...
Yves:
- It should say white space should be spelled consistently; we have no corresponding change to it; how are you going to spell it? I know it is not important but... list of changes along with the resolution so people could look at that and approve.
Bryan:
- Let's take out 110 then;
DavidF:
- 116 is about undefined metadata; cannot be formatted as scope because it is not a value;
Bryan:
- The proposal is to use unformatted text, clear to me
DavidF:
- 124: Alphabetical order; clear enough
Bryan:
- Clear to me
DavidF:
- 128: There is a missing element that accepts extended attributes, an error correction
Bryan:
- I agree, clear to me
DavidF:
- 133: Naming issues, alphabetical issues and formatting issues
Bryan:
- We have a convention that says when we have concatenated words; we make the first word lower case and upper case the second word;
DavidF:
- 135: No suggestions, it's a clarification; this should be taken out;
- 136: error correction, notes missing in the list of extendable elements that seems to be clear;
- 146: I fixed that in the new working draft;
- The new group for the summery approval:
* Editorial, fix as suggested:
* DavidF: 116, 124, 128, 133, 136, 146
* Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125
* Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145
* Bryan: 134 example fix
Bryan:
- I second this new list.
DavidF:
- I am going to take the votes;
yes= approve the proposed solutions
no= do not approve the proposed solutions
abstain = abstain from voting
Helena=Yes, Shirly=Yes, Tom=Yes, DavidF=Yes, Lucia=Yes, Kevin=Yes, Yves=Abstain, Bryan=Yes, Joachim=Yes, Uwe=Yes, DavidW=Yes, Asanka=Yes
11 yes, 1 abstain
Bryan:
- Aside from the non-controversial ones, several of these will require more work; I propose the remaining five minutes to take a look at the owners for each of the comments; some of the comments were not clear to me, about the ownership; I used “tbd” to denote them; we have 12 tbds on the list; people who received assignment from me, are there any objections for having your name as the owner?
DavidF:
- I am fine with my assignments.
Bryan:
- are you ok with your assignments Tom?
Tom:
- ok.
Bryan:
- I am ok with my assignments, Frederick isn't here. I will ask Frederick, Ryan isn't here either, I will also email him;
- Comment # 118: no link between type and subtype for inline code; this is something that should be owned by Tom.
DavidF:
- there are two parts to it, one that - we aim to have the type and subtype – sub-property types with processing requirements or constraints; that basically subtype must not exist without the type; that is fair to require; you must update the subtype if you updated the type. I believe this should be a part of the fix; this is not proposed by the commenter; Yves, would you agree with also linking them with constrains and processing requirements?
Yves:
- Don't we already have that?
David:
- Not sure;
Yves:
- There is already that.
DavidF:
- Sorry for my confusion, if this in place, this is a simple fix. I agree with the proposed solution and I can take it;
Bryan:
- DavidF takes the ownership of 118.
- 119 is definitions and spelling of quote type ; type value for quote is defined as ... we have no owner for this item, it seems pretty clear and non-controversial, I will take the ownership;
Yves:
-What's the definition of quote exactly? We are just looking at the ownership;
Bryan:
- I will take ownership of 119;
- 123 was withdrawn by Yves;
- Next to be determined is xml:lang and xml:space comment #127: .... so who'd like to take the ownership of this item? I understand this one relatively well; I will take the ownership of this one.
- Next comment: #130: about translation annotation, candidate annotation;
DavidF:
- I am happy to take the ownership of 130;
Bryan:
- How about 131; sections in the specification;
David:
- We probably could do it now; it is worth discussing now - it is a very big reshuffle if we went for it; I don't think we are unhappy with the appendices;
Bryan:
- Are you proposing that we solve this right now?
DavidF:
- I prefer to stay with the structure as is; If the TC thinks we need the rehaul. i am for the second proposal;
Bryan:
- I support Yves’ proposal. That we move the modules into the numbered portion of the specification;
DavidF:
- I'd probably make a ballot now.
- Options: a) keep as it is, b) use sections, c) use sub-sections
Bryan:
- Any discussions needed before the ballot? I second.
DavidF:
- H:3 S:(offline) T:2 df:1 L:abs Y:3 K:3 B:3 J:3 U: 3 DW: 3 A:3
- 3 is the clear winner; 8 votes for 3; this is resolved. I can own the implementation;
Bryan:
- We have 8 mins left. Updates on the promotion liaison subcommittee meeting?
DavidF:
- People who want to stay for the P&L SC can stay for the call; it will be about the status of the state of the art report;
Bryan:
- I propose that we make changes to the remaining agenda items as follows;
- Request for new business for next time; then work on couple of more tbds
- Is there any new business proposed for the agenda next time? No new business.
DavidF:
- Before we jump to the tbds, we need to discuss comment #112 schema issues - I am not sure whether this is already resolved as Tom already committed the new schemas;
Tom:
- I believe everything has been completed and committed;
DavidF:
- Yves, are you happy with the changes that Tom made?
Yves:
- Yes. It's working now;
Bryan:
- I propose we go ahead and close this; this could be re-opened as a placeholder for further testing when making new fixes;
DavidF:
- It is good to have opened it for others; - It was not a formal approval, but no dissents reported.
Bryan:
- Good work on making those fixes.
Tom:
- Apologies, for the necessity of the fixes;
Bryan:
- The schemas are in much better shape;
- Are there any tbds that needs to be further discussed?
- Remaining tbds: 132, 137, 138,140, 141, 143,144
DavidF:
- 132 should be owned by you;
Byran :
- Agreed. 132 will be owned by me.
Bryan:
- 137: Yves and I have debated this on the mailing list - we just drop the note ; xliff is an exchange format not a processing format, this was unfriendly for some tools; or else we can make a decision to drop this note; are there any other thoughts?
DavidF:
- The note is very important; I wouldn't drop it; it is just a note; many times people have suggested changes to the specification for xliff to be processing friendly; the note clarifies that xliff is an interchange format; processing is out of scope; Rtaher than dropping the note we can add another.
Bryan:
- Accept to have the second note; DavidF, can you own that?
DavidF:
- I can.
Bryan:
- 138 - Tom listed this is a schema ambiguity; Tom is not in the call; Ii agree that there are ambiguities; this could be assigned to Tom to resolve on the mailing list;
DavidF:
- 139 should be owned by Ryan rather than me; …
Bryan:
- Tom noted that specification allows ctr to be added to file, skeleton, group, unit, glossary, match.
DavidF:
- Those are the extension points; I think Ryan is the best person.
Bryan:
- We will deal with the remain tbds in the mailing list;
- Meeting adjourned.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members
|
| Achieved quorum |
yes |
| Individual Attendance |
Contributing Members: 12 of 27 (44%)
Voting Members: 12 of 13 (92%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Contributing Companies: 8 of 14 (57%)
Voting Companies: 8 of 8 (100%)
|