Description: Face to Face Meeting:
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany
Venue: Tekom conference, Rhein Main Hallen, Wiesbaden, Raom Nassau. Follow signs for 1A rooms – at stairs going down go left at the sign.
Website: http://www.tceurope.org/conference/tcworld.htm
Teleconference Details (If Available):
1. Call one of the MeetingPlace phone numbers:
From the AMER region dial: * 1-888-967-2253 * +1-650-607-2253
From the APAC region dial: * +61 2 8817 6100
From the EMEA region dial: * +44 118 924 9000
2. Enter the Meeting ID (805534) followed by the # key
3. If the organizer has not started the meeting you will be:
a. Asked to speak your name followed by the # key
b. Placed in the waiting room on music hold until the organizer starts the meeting.
If the organizer has started the meeting you will be:
a. Asked to enter the Meeting Password (030543)
b. Asked to speak your name followed by the # key
==========
Agenda: Agenda:
1/Welcome and Introductions
a. Adjustments to Agenda
2/Survey of Recent XLIFF TC Deliverables
a. XLIFF 1.2 Committee Draft Spec
b. XLIFF Representation Guides
i (X)HTML
ii +PO/POT Gettext Files
iii +Java Resource Bundles
3/Remaining 1.2 Deliverables
a. XLIFF 1.2 Committee Draft & (X)HTML Representation Guide Public Review #2 (15 days)
b XLIFF 1.2 Committee Spec Ballot
c OASIS Organisational Member Affidavits of Use of Spec
d Submission of XLIFF 1.2 and Representation Guides to OASIS Standards Review
4/Strategic Planning
a. What’s next after XLIFF 1.2?
i. Additional Representation Guides?
Which formats shall we target? Shall we work on .NET/Win32?
ii. Guides / Reference Implementations for Interoperability with Other Standards?
Already some work with DITA, ITS – can build upon this by implementing reference transformations / processes
Shall the committee consider closer more formal collaboration with ITS & DITA committees?
Proof of Concept implementations such as XML/XLIFF round-trip tool?
iii. XLIFF Revision? XLIFF 1.2 or XLIFF 2.0?
Is it time yet to start discussing a new release?
Subsetting / restricting XSD as proposed by Christian
Terminology Markup? Has been suggested by Kara Warburton of IBM some time ago to support terminology markup such as translate (yes/no), subject-categorization, type, etc.
iv. Adoption Evangelism?
Journal Articles? Conferences? IGNITE?
Who? What? When?
v. Does our TC Charter accurately reflect what we’re working towards?
b. Membership
Is there anyone we should reach out to?
c. TC Leadership
Who is interested in taking on the Role of Co-Chair? Editor? Secretary?
d. TC Practices
Do we want to consider any changes to our monthly teleconferences? E.g., do we want to consider becoming an email-only TC, or increase the frequency of calls?
Do we want to develop and use a TC Wiki? Source-control? Other means of communications or collaboration?
5/ Action Item Review & Closure
==========
Minutes: 1/Welcome and Introductions
2/Surveyed Recent XLIFF TC Deliverables
3/Remaining 1.2 Deliverables
We are hoping to complete the 1.2 deliverables by end of year with submission to Standards process by end of year.
4/Strategic Planning
a. What’s next after XLIFF 1.2?
The group discussed what to work on after 1.2 and there was broad consensus that the next step would be XLIFF 2.0.
Wider adoption evangelism was still seen as an important objective for near term XLIFF TC work.
Reference implementations or toolkit(s) similar to what DITA now provides. Possibly develop an XLIFF validator tool to be included in a toolkit - to go beyond what XSD validation provides (eg., verify that language/country codes are correct).
Consider submitting to ISO when and if XLIFF becomes an OASIS standard.
i. Additional Representation Guides?
It was proposed and discussed that a DITA representation guide - more of a best practices spec - should published. This may be complimentary or supplementary to the DITA Translation Best Practices. Not clear yet if required.
The .NET / Win32 document may be worked on but the binary resource format is probably not feasible to define - would focus on the XML based resource format only.
ii. Guides / Reference Implementations for Interoperability with Other Standards?
It was suggested that the XLIFF Round Trip tool could be modified to support DITA/ITS -> XLIFF -> Translated DITA model.
The TC is very supportive of a closer working relationship with ITS and DITA.
iii. XLIFF Revision? XLIFF 1.2 or XLIFF 2.0?
The next revision was agreed to be a 2.0 release.
It would be a significantly revised architecture.
It was agreed that the TC should begin collecting and prioritising XLIFF 2.0 features.
The TC discussed key Missing feature candidates for XLIFF 2.0:
Subsetting / restricting XSD as proposed by Christian
Lack of normative Skeleton file definition and use.
Version control Metadata - need to track revision information
Ability to store Multilingual Content. Can now use alt-trans, but not documented or normative.
Create a bare-bones XLIFF core, then provide extension modules that support additional features.
"Simplify, Extend and Clarify"
Core XLIFF functionality would be in primary XLIFF namespace and would be very simple to implement.
Extensions would provide support for more complicated features like Segmentation, Pre-Translation, Generic Inline Markup, etc.
for example, could have an extension for revision control features.
Possibly use Schema Catalogues; possibly even host (via OASIS?) a namespace Catalogues for XLIFF 3rd party custom / extension namespaces.
More work on inline-elements:
Separate inline elements from other elements? Maybe as an extension?
Stronger rules for when to use each inline tag? There is some confusion about when to use each inline tag. Need more and better examples.
Create models for how different XLIFF users can best use XLIFF
Define a multi-lingual "Localisation Kit" format, which may include XLIFF content + original source material + all target language files + skeleton files + reference files + some sort of manifest document describing/defining the payload.
Using XLIFF as a primary content authoring container. Author stores contend directly to XLIFF instead of another proprietary format.
Terminology Markup? Has been suggested by Kara Warburton of IBM some time ago to support terminology markup such as translate (yes/no), subject-categorization, type, etc.
iv. Adoption Evangelism?
No specific suggestions or plans, but widely encouraged to continue to publish articles and papers/presentations.
v. Does our TC Charter accurately reflect what we’re working towards?
No changes for now.
b. Membership
Medtronics was suggested as a company we would like to invite as a member - Rodolfo to make contact
We also invite Lingotek, producer of a translation search engine product extensively using XLIFF. Tim Hunt - founder - joined the F2F as an observer.
c. TC Leadership
Bryan will play a larger role in leadership of the TC moving forward, as Tony indicated he will need to scale back his participation after end of year. Rodolfo agreed to take the role of Editor moving forward. We welcomed Peter continuing in role of TC Secretary.
Bryan & Tony (through end of year): Co-Chairs
Rodolfo: Editor;
Peter: Secretary;
d. TC Practices
We decided to keep the present monthly meeting cycle of the 3rd Tuesday @ 4pm BST / 11am EST. We agreed to stay with teleconferences rather than try to move to email only.
Should we use a Wiki? Yes - should for collaborative work... use to store information like for FAQ but not for storing all work committee work...
Need to define a set of common rules for how to use the Wiki.
Explore a Source Control system if available.
Explore the possibility of submitting XLIFF to ISO for certification. This would mean it would be required for government use... would encourage wider adoption.
5/ Action Item Review & Closure
Bring these suggestions back to the XLIFF TC for further brainstorming sessions.
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members |
| Achieved quorum |
true |
| Counts toward voter eligibility |
true |
| Individual Attendance |
Members: 9 of 35 (25%)
Voting Members: 8 of 12 (66%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Companies: 8 of 24 (33%)
Voting Companies: 8 of 12 (66%)
|