I favor option #2. It keeps the schedule
and helps motivate us to review—I know I tend to wait until the last day.
If for some reason many people can’t attend the conference call, then
option #3 become the back up plan. That is, vote next Tuesday if quorum is met,
otherwise, post it as an online ballot.
Regards,
Doug Domeny
Software Analyst
Ektron, Inc.
+1 603 594-0249 x212
http://www.ektron.com
From: Tony
Jewtushenko [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:00
AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.2
Committee Draft Spec
Thanks to allwho
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 twoscenarios
outlined as of last week for how the ballot would proceed:
1/publish finalcommittee
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.
:
