Description: 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 (note: new number)
2/ Enter the Participant Access Code: 737043#
==========
Agenda: 1/ Roll call
2/ Approve August 18, 2009 meeting minutes:
Accept, reject, or amend.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200908/msg00005.html
3/ Face to face meeting Munich, November 16, 17
A. Attendee list
Yes: Bryan, Magnus, Asgeir and Rodolfo
No (yes to dial-in): Yves,Tony
B. Rodolfo will check with JoAnn about meeting facility in Munich
4/ XLIFF 1.2 Errata Status
A. Rodolfo will update the required documents and submit them for approval.
B. Good news, Schemas, Samples, and Spec are all fixed and ready to be voted on
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: Yves Savourel, Bryan Schnabel, Dimitra Anastasiou, Rodolfo Raya, David Filip, Tony Jewtushenko, Asgeir Frimansson, Christian Lieske, Magnus Martikainen.
Regrets: Doug Domeny.
Tony moved to approve the minutes of previous meeting, Yves seconded and none objected.
Magnus, Bryan, Asgeir, Christian and Rodolfo may attend to a face to face meeting in Munich in November 16/17. Rodolfo will contact JoAnn Hackos regarding meeting facilities during DITA Europe conference.
Rodolfo asked if the list of TC members should be updated in the specification errata and everyone agreed on adding new members, preserving those that no longer participate in the TC.
A roll call vote was conducted and a motion to fix the transitional schema to disallow non-XLIFF attributes in XLIFF namespace passed unanimously.
Rodolfo will send the fixed examples to the TC mailing list and will contact Doug regarding the fix on the schema.
Discussion of inline markup for XLIFF 2.0 was resumed.
Item 3.1.1, section 3 was discussed. Everyone agreed that it would be good to move subflows to their own translation units. The specifications should describe how to indicate the original location of the moved text and the type of markup that enclosed it.
Item 3.1.2, canonical representation of native content, was discussed. 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.
Christian reminded everyone that he will be talking about XLIFF and ITS at TEKOM and asked for comments about the interaction of these two standards.
Call dismissed.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 9 of 40 (22%)
Voting Members: 8 of 10 (80%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 9 of 26 (34%)
Voting Companies: 8 of 10 (80%)
|