Thanks to all who submitted their spec issues. While I can complete the revisions to the spec spotted and submitted bar one, I couldn't get it done by the deadline for the ballot, which has in fact passed (10am or even 11am EST).
Although most of the revisions are small, there are a lot of them and then there's the one pointed out by Rudolfo regarding use of spaces in seg-source between mrk's which can't be fixed by a simple revision. We'll have to
discuss it and make a decision. In any case I'll send out a revised 1.2 Committee Draft spec late today that will address the typos, missing bits and details that were submitted.
We had two scenarios outlined as of last week for how the ballot would proceed:
1/publish final committee draft spec today - have 1 week ballot in time for next Tuesday's TC meeting.
2/if not published today, spec would be
published before next Tuesday and would have a role call ballot to approve as Committee Draft.
I would like to propose a 3rd option - to postpone the TC teleconference for one week until Tuesday 23 May, so we work towards publishing a final committee draft before next Tuesday 16 May, and set up a web ballot commencing 1 week before the TC teleconference.
Option 1 is no longer viable, - so we're down to 2 options
still - #2 and #3.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Domeny [mailto:]
Sent: 09 May 2006 09:55
To:
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.2 Committee Draft Spec
We are definitely making good progress cleaning up these little things.
See comments below.
Regards,
Doug Domeny
Software Analyst
Ektron, Inc.
+1 603 594-0249 x212
http://www.ektron.com
From: Rodolfo M. Raya [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 11:38 PM
To: Tony Jewtushenko
Cc:
Subject: Re: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.2 Committee Draft Spec
Hi All,
Some details that need attention:
1) In section 3.2.5 the description of <mrk> element mentions the optional attribute equiv-text but the attribute is not included in the list of optional attributes for that element.
[doug] The equiv-text attribute is not valid in the <mrk> element.
3) <seg-source> is a new element born with old bad habits. It has an optional "ts" attribute that is deprecated. I don't see a reason for adding deprecated stuff to something new.
[doug] In principle, I agree that deprecated items should not be added to new structures. However, I can see the need to duplicate <source> attributes in <seg-source>. Since <source> supports ‘ts’, it may be helpful to use it in
<seg-source>, but I can go either way.
:
