Hello,
I do have some objections with two modules (the glossary and the translation candidate module), and it might be that I would at a close look also find objections with details in the core spec, but
this does not mean that I would vote with “no” for either of them.
So, my vote would be (1) as well.
I think that we have however not successfully conducted the Container discussion. We made XLIFF 2.0 in some regards a container standard by now, but we did not solve the whole container challenge,
nor did we formally define the container for the parts where we decided to make use of it. Also, we did not clearly define interfaces and intersections with other containers (Linport, but also specialized formats like TMX, TBX).
Regards,
Joachim
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Shirley Coady
Sent: Freitag, 5. April 2013 21:26
To:
Subject: [xliff] RE: Call for notification of dissent: all members please reply
(1)
I have no objections with the core; I have no objections with the modules
Shirley
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Uwe Stahlschmidt
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 6:22 PM
To:
Subject: [xliff] RE: Call for notification of dissent: all members please reply
(1)
I have no objections with the core; I have no objections with the modules
-Uwe
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Ryan King
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 8:25 AM
To:
Subject: [xliff] RE: Call for notification of dissent: all members please reply
(1)
I have no objections with the core; I have no objections with the modules
Thanks,
Ryan
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Peter Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 5:34 AM
To: Kevin O'Donnell; Schnabel, Bryan S;
Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: Call for notification of dissent: all members please reply
Me too
(1)
I have no objections with the core; I have no objections with the modules
Why is this non-binding? Surely we should try and stick to it if this email shows consensus.
Thanks,
Peter.
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Kevin O'Donnell
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 06:28
To: Schnabel, Bryan S;
Subject: [xliff] RE: Call for notification of dissent: all members please reply
(1)
I have no objections with the core; I have no objections with the modules
-Kevin.
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Schnabel, Bryan S
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:18 PM
To: Schnabel, Bryan S;
Subject: [xliff] RE: Call for notification of dissent: all members please reply
. . . And I am happy to express my opinion first:
> (1) I have no objections with the core; I have no objections with the modules
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Schnabel, Bryan S
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:01 PM
To:
Subject: [xliff] Call for notification of dissent: all members please reply
Hi all,
As we approach the completion of XLIFF 2.0 it is very important that we manage the ballots and approvals in the best way possible.
To get to where we are today we’ve had a very, very robust dialog. We’ve had energetic, passionate, sometimes contentious, but always transparent discussions and debates.
It is my belief that everyone had a voice, and ample opportunity to express their concerns. As a result, I believe we have a specification that has been thoroughly vetted, and reflects consensus.
Among the standards owned by OASIS - XLIFF is somewhat non-mainstream. Therefore it will greatly help us to get the votes we need among OASIS voting members if we bring our standard to them with unanimous TC approval.
Toward that end, I ask that each of you please take the time now to voice any concern you have about the core or modules that would prevent you from casting a “yes” vote for specification and schema approval.
I would expect that we’ve all had time to form an opinion on core. As for modules, I think we’ve all had ample opportunity to either get involved, or not get involved. If you do not have an opinion on a module, I would
ask that you do not hold your “yes” vote hostage to your lack of an opinion on that module. I would ask that, as we do with subcommittees we do not participate in, trust that those who *did* have inputs did so competently.
So now, I ask that every member please respond to this email with the reply that fits your opinion:
(1)
I have no objections with the core; I have no objections with the modules
(2)
I have no objections with the core; I object to the X module because [insert reason here]
(3)
I have no objections with the modules; I object to the Z feature in the core because [insert reason here]
(4)
I object to the Z feature in the core because [insert reason here]; I object to the X module because [insert reason here]
Please take the time to reply to the this before the next TC meeting. Please also refrain from contesting an answer. The goal at this stage is to simply log the results. If there are any non-(1) replies, let’s wait until
the next meeting to address them.
This is of course non-binding.
Thanks in advance for participating in this thread.
- Bryan
