Description:
Please get the dial in information from our private Action Item here:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3663
==========
Agenda:
I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)
A. Roll call
B. Approve meeting minutes, 1 September 2015
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00001.html
C. Revise scheduled for XLIFF 2.1
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201504/msg00009.html
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201504/msg00014.html
D. Requesting progress of ISO submision of XLIFF 2.0
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00002.html
II XLIFF 2.1 (0:10 - 0:45)
* indicates new topic, not yet discussed
A. Discuss whether can be allowed at all extension points (Ryan)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00013.html
B. Inline attributes and canCopy (Ryan)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00015.html
C. * Question on fragment identifier (Ryan)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00016.html
D. Typo in example (4.3.1.10 dataRefEnd) (Yves)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00022.html
E. Question about note references (Ryan)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00037.html
[pending AI for dF]
F. Add N Constraint to the core order attribute
DF will make a CFD for this on mailing list. This has been now sufficiently discussed.
[pending AI for Fredrik]
G. Template/Model for TBX Mapping with XLIFF v2.0 and Higher Version 1.0 (DavidF)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201411/msg00091.html
Resolution: DavidF is in touch with stakeholders; expect completion soon.
[pending AI for Fredrik]
H. ITS storage size restriction
Fredrik to propose slr profile for ITS storage size data category
[pending AI for dF]
I. Mistakes in the spec (Soroush)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201502/msg00009.html
J. NVDL for the core is updated (Soroush)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201503/msg00009.html
K. * NVDL validation for XLIFF 2.0 (Soroush)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00002.html
L. * Mistake in test suite files (Soroush)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00003.html
M. * Ignorables (Ingo)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00010.html
III Sub Committee Report (0:45 - 0:55)
IV Current and New Business (0:55 -
==========
Minutes:
Minutes
I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)
A. Roll call
Attendance: Ingo, David F., Uwe, Bryan, Lucia, Felix, Fredrik, Yves, Tom.
Regrets: Ryan, Soroush.
- Approve meeting minutes, 1 September 2015
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00001.html
B: I move to approve the meeting minutes.
I: I second.
B: Meeting minutes approved.
- Requesting progress of ISO submision of XLIFF 2.0
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00002.html
B: I have not seen any activity since last meeting.
dF: I have not heard anything either.
II XLIFF 2.1
-. * Question on fragment identifier (Ryan)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00016.html
Y: this one was solved on the mailing list.
B: I will remove it from the agenda for next week.
-. Typo in example (4.3.1.10 dataRefEnd) (Yves)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00022.html
B: I will be removing them from the agenda as dF resolves them.
-. Question about note references (Ryan)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201506/msg00037.html
[Yves and dF replied on the mailing list]
-. Add N Constraint to the core order attribute
DF will make a CFD for this on mailing list. This has been now sufficiently discussed.
B: Any progress on this point.
dF: I should do it soon.
Action item for dF.
-. Template/Model for TBX Mapping with XLIFF v2.0 and Higher Version 1.0 (DavidF)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201411/msg00091.html
Resolution: [pending AI for Fredrik] expect completion soon.
F: I am still making progress, it will be done soon. [pending AI for Fredrik]
-. ITS storage size restriction
Fredrik to propose slr profile for ITS storage size data category
F: I am still making progress, it will be done soon. [pending AI for Fredrik]
I. Mistakes in the spec (Soroush)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201502/msg00009.html
J. NVDL for the core is updated (Soroush)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201503/msg00009.html
K. * NVDL validation for XLIFF 2.0 (Soroush)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00002.html
dF: Felix, do you have an update on Advanced Validation, as you’ve been in touch with Soroush?
F: Not really. Souroush has done a good job.
B: it is nice that Oxygen has now basic support for XLIFF 2.0, they are looking into the advanced validation artifacts to support advanced constraints and processing requirements..
dF: we should talk to them to see if they could send a comment to the public list, or allow Bryan to post to the working list
B: it would be a perfect statement of use for the new version.
L. * Mistake in test suite files (Soroush)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00003.html
dF: Yves, have you looked at it? We had a discussion on this a long time ago, when Jirka still was an OASIS member. If an attribute is on an element from the same vocabulary it is more economical not to declare the namespace and this is also the strategy we use in our XSDs. This is a generic XML validation issue.
B: For example:
<gls:glossEntry gls:ref="#m1">
dF : yes, this is invalid according to our schema, we only declare namespace module of an attribute if it’s on an element from a different namespace, like fs:fs, it is always on elements from another namespace. Felix, do you have a comment?
dF: we should update the examples of the test suite to fix that issue. I can do it, unless Yves wants to do it.
Yves: no problem, please do it.
Action item for dF: fix the examples of the sample files.
F: I agree with dF.
B: It’s an issue with our XSDs?
dF: it is not an issue, you can do it either way, but once we decided to do it one way [not to state attribute namespace when on it’s own namespace elements] we have to stick to it, because the other way is not equivalent as Jirka explained. I have to check also on the spec if the same example is there.
M. * Ignorables (Ingo)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201509/msg00010.html
B: do you need more info from us?
Ingo: we are happy with the answers, we do not need more info for the moment.
Y: is there a latest version of 2.1 somewhere?
dF: I have made the latest build on 5th August. Since then I only made one small typo fix, that is not in the build.
Tom: ITS XSD is current. I need to confirm extension points in other modules.
III Sub Committee Report (0:45 - 0:55)
dF: The work on the new version of the questionnaire is on. We are having a meeting after this TC meeting.
Stefan Gentz raised some interest in XLIFF support on twitter, in an exchange of tweets SDL acknowledged that they’re working on the support of XLIFF 2. It is good news that the community cares about the XLIFF 2 adoption and the reports that we do. Stephan Gentz and @Jeromobot, distinguished Tweeters in the L10n areas were inquiring about the new version of our XLIFF 2 adoption report (SotA).
dF: we should also talk about the sister committee (which will be a good home for TMX, as discussed and minuted in August). Anybody interested in the SC meeting should stay on this channel after the TC meeting adjourns. This week TCD will sign OASIS accession, so hopefully there will be good progress on this before next meeting.
dF: Next European LocWorld will be in Dublin again, which will be a good location for the next Symposium. It can be a good pre-conference to LocWorld.
B: Have you looked at China in LocWord?
dF: we have considered an Asian location for the next symposium, I spoke on XLIFF in Shanghai and sounded the ground there, but we should plan it carefully. It might be difficult for members to attend there.
IV Current and New Business
dF: Phil was interested in the ITS text analytics category in XLIFF, we should put it on the agenda for next meeting.
B: Will do, TC meeting adjourned.
==========
Attendance:
Meeting Statistics |
Quorum rule |
51% of voting members
|
Achieved quorum |
yes |
Individual Attendance |
Contributing Members: 9 of 33 (27%) Voting Members: 7 of 11 (63%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
Company Attendance |
Contributing Companies: 7 of 15 (46%) Voting Companies: 6 of 8 (75%)
|