Description:
See the private action item for dial in details
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff-omos/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3822
==========
Agenda:
A. Admin
1- Roll call
? out of 5 voters
aprove minutes from 30th Jan 2018
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-omos/201802/msg00000.html
B. Material
1- XLIFF OM
OM wiki needs aligned with current JLIFF structure as per 0.9.5
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/xliff-omos-om/wiki
2- JLIFF
(https://github.com/oasis-tcs/xliff-omos-jliff)
Previous Consensus: restated
DON'T reference the context file [for core and module] from schema or instances. This is tied via the spec [driven by version number] but not the instances, to prevent hammering of the context file.
Extensions always need to declare or reference their context inline.
AI Robert [DONE], implement meeting consenus for extension points. Extension data needs to start with context. Each extension will be one object. Try to allow them only where they're allowed in XLIFF
reviewed "element" extension points implemented as has map rather than an array in the latest commit https://github.com/oasis-tcs/xliff-omos-jliff/commit/85e7c3e0e8d88539df5b2eb7519d6735f84256e9
Discuss:
Use URI type of context or not?
make context for 2.0 and 2.1
dF AI to make a PR for forking the 2.0 and 2.1 contexts
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/xliff-omos-jliff/pull/5
[DONE, review]
- Continue discussion on extension points, look at Robert's commit to introduce extension
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/xliff-omos-jliff/commit/85e7c3e0e8d88539df5b2eb7519d6735f84256e9
There are several places where context can be provided: root, or units, files, groups.
(Whether @context should be at root or only lower levels).
Should mimic XLIFF behavior as close as possible..
We also agreed that having a dedicated extension container is more validation friendly than just allowing additional properties on the root structure..
-Continue discussing pros and cons of the extensionsData approach
compare with XML and consider going back and forth between XML and JSON.
AI dF and Yves [DONE]: clear usage of XLIFF prefix registration mechanism for JLIFF, request that XLIFF prefixes don't use colon ":"
raised on XLIFF TC 16th Jan
DONE in principle, some minor fixes pending, e.g. FAQ
http://markmail.org/thread/qmvyp4yuihx76g6r
3- TBX Mapping
TBX-Basic mapping is in order, almost done on TBXInfo
@James, would you walk us through the TBX Basic changes?
C- Other Topics
2- Liaisons
OS ballot closes today 23:59 UTC
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=3171
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/voting/ballot.php?id=3171
3- Promotion
Will have good coverage on GALA Boston in March, as TAPICC Track 2 will be launched, building on JLIFF
4- AOB
1- Date of next meeting
27th Feb look good, probably cannot make 13th March (GALA coneference), 27th March?
2- Looking for a new secretary. Contact dF
==========
Minutes:
A. Admin
2018-02-13
Roll call phil (minutes), robert, david
rve: approves previous minutes.
B. Material
XLIFF OM
JLIFF rve: Summarized recent changes to the schema. ...also modified example1 to include the context which chase had worked on. ...and a user extension ...a working example based on xliff example
df: we should be using the version number relating to xliff version number. ...jliff 2.1 ...no ITS namespaces
rve: the example has the 2.1
df: I made the pull request to create two context files: one for 2.0 without ITS namespace and, 2.1 with ITS namespace ...in 2.1 both ITS namespaces were added and ctr was removed
pr: do subgroups and subitems replace groups and files?
rve: subitems is just a property which holds collections
rev: when working on schema recently in xliff 2.0 there are several modules ...modules vs extensions ...they should be defined in the schema
df: it was postponed until the substructure was defined
rve: we should create an AI for it
df: modules are allowed most places that extensions are allowed
rve: context is only used for extensions I think?
df: yes ...ctr will be an extension in 2.1 ...this is also why we should start the specification so things like this can be explained
rve: should we create two branches 2.0 | 2.1?
df: good point, choose one as master and then branch off ...I propose to make 2.1 the master branch
rve: schema 0.9.6 will equate to xliff 2.1
TBX Mapping
C. Other Topics
Liaisons
Promotion
AOB TAPICC track 2 and 3 will use jliff GALA pre-conference day 13 March
Date of Next Meeting 27 February 2018
Meeting adjourned
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members
|
| Achieved quorum |
yes |
| Individual Attendance |
Contributing Members: 3 of 20 (15%)
Voting Members: 3 of 5 (60%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Contributing Companies: 3 of 15 (20%)
Voting Companies: 3 of 5 (60%)
|