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
Note: new number for UK
UK: +44 (0) 844 581 9102
UK: 0870 35 204 74 (will redirect to new number for 90 days, from Aug 6)
2/ Enter the Participant Access Code: 737043#
==========
Agenda: 1/ Roll call
2/ Approve July 07, 2009 meeting minutes:
Accept, reject, or amend.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200907/msg00014.html
3/ XLIFF 1.2(.1) Errata vs. New Rev.: The word Errata is spoken often in our TC meetings. We previously concluded that the bug fixes in the XLIFF 1.2 spec and schemas were substantive, thereby ruling out the possibility to publish Errata (per the rules and definitions of OASIS). Here's the email that summarized that (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200808/msg00005.html). Perhaps the TC now thinks Errata is an option. Is it? From the OASIS policy (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#errata):
A. Define Errata: "Errata" means a set of changes or proposed changes to a specification that are not Substantive Changes.
B. Define Substantive Change: "Substantive Change" is a change to a specification that would require a compliant application or implementation to be modified or rewritten in order to remain compliant.
C. XLIFF 1.2 changes to Spec and Schema: do these require an XLIFF 1.2 compliant application/implementation to be modified to remain compliant?
i. Yes = Publish new rev (1.2.1), no Errata document is published
ii. No = Publish Errata
4/ XLIFF 1.2.1 must now be moved to "front burner" now that errors have been identified in the samples
Example of a conformance clause: DITA (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200907/msg00123.html)
A. Good news, Schemas, Samples, and Spec are all fixed and ready to be voted on
B. We must include a conformance clause in order to bring XLIFF 1.2.1 to ballot
i. Do we create a very lax conformance clause for 1.2.1, and go back to working on 2.0? And move the work to email?
ii. Do we create a robust conformance clause in order to have a good starting point for 2.0's clause?
C. Bryan posted the OASIS guidelines (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200907/msg00017.html)
D. Rodolfo posted a first draft to start the discussion (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200907/msg00018.html)
E. Doug made a suggestion, representing the CMS perspective (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200907/msg00019.html)
F. After a few refining emails, Rodolfo posted a draft on the wiki (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF1.2/Errata), item 7
G. Magnus documented that it might be more efficient to create a list of thing that do not need to be preserved. He proposed that given our timing goals for XLIFF 1.2.1, we should leave the application compliance undefined and focus on file compliance only, with a view to properly define application compliance in scope of XLIFF 2.0. (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200907/msg00023.html)
H. Lucia recommended putting brackets and spec-section-titles into the clause
5/ Review Requirements for inline elements [define, understand, then vote - being mindful of Tony's suggestion of limiting the length of discussion]
(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. [Not Resolved]
3.1.2. Canonical Representation of native content
[Not Resolved - Christian annotated a distinction:
"Maybe, we may want to differentiate between two types of canonical representation:"
1. a semantic/abstract one
2. an encoded/concrete one]
3.1.3. Extensibility / Annotations
["Christian will modify item 3.1.3 and separate extensibility
from annotations. Action item: Christian to extend the text
to clarify the scope and meaning of the request.]
3.1.4. [Resolved] Content Manipulation
3.1.5. [Not yet addressed] XML Implementation
3.1.6. [Not yet addressed] General Scope}
6/ If something is valid XML and not disallowed explicitly by the specification, it means it is allowed?(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200906/msg00008.html) (Question captured from Yves' comment on Rodolfo's XLIFF Checker Tool)
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)
==========
Minutes: Present: Bryan Schnabel, Doug Domeny, Asgeir Frimannsson, Rodolfo Raya, Christian Lieske, Magnus Martikainen.
Regrets: Tony Jewtushenko, David Filip, Yves Savourel
Rodolfo moved to accept previous meeting minutes. Asgeir seconded and none objected.
Bryan summarized the discussion about publishing an errata of XLIFF 1.2 instead of releasing XLIFF 1.2.1.
Doug indicated that the changes to the schemas are not substantive.
The new OASIS policy of considering Schemas or DTDs as normative when there is a difference between the specification and the grammars was explained.
A vote on pursuing the release of an errata to publish updates for XLIFF 1.2 was conducted and passed by acclamation. Rodolfo will update the required documents and submit them for approval.
Conversation about the new OASIS policy about Schemas and DTDs continued.
Rodolfo mentioned that it would be nice to have a face-to-face meeting in November in Germany, during DITA Europe conference. Bryan, Magnus, Asgeir and Rodolfo confirmed they could attend.
Chistian mentioned that he will present a tutorial on XLIFF and ITS at TEKOM conference in November and requested comments about tools and their support for these standards.
Call dismissed.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 6 of 40 (15%)
Voting Members: 6 of 10 (60%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 6 of 26 (23%)
Voting Companies: 6 of 10 (60%)
|