I also favor option #3 (RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.2 Committee Draft Spec)

Title: Message

I like 
Doug's reasons for favoring #2, but I think under the circumstances, like Tony 
and Christian, I favor #3.

 

Thanks,

 

Bryan

 

  

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Lieske, 
  Christian [mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 
  10, 2006 9:03 AM
To: 
Subject: 
  RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.2 Committee Draft Spec

  
Hi there,

  
 

  
I favor #3.

  
 

  
Cheers,

  
Christian

  
    

    
    From: Doug Domeny 
    [mailto:] 
Sent: Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 
    17:32
To: 
Subject: RE: 
    [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.2 Committee Draft Spec

    

    

    
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.

    
: