Re: [xliff-comment] Next steps regarding your very useful XLIFF 2.0 Public Review comments

Hi Jörg, 

I'm Chet Ensign, the director of standards development at OASIS. I see your question to Bryan and thought I would jump in with the answer. 

You asked: "How is the OASIS process with resolving comments, e.g. do you need my "official" acceptance of the proposed solution(s), which would be similar to the W3C process?" 

At OASIS, we ensure that there is transparency and visibility into the work of Technical Committees so that stakeholders in the broader marketplace can make their own decisions about the quality of the work. It is up to each Technical Committee to decide whether and how to act on comments received. TCs are required to acknowledge comments received, to track them along with their decision on how to resolve them, and to post these comment resolution logs at specific stages of the process so that those providing comments can see what the TC chose to do. There is no requirement that a TC obtain acceptance of a proposed solution. 

You can find this explained in more detail in "Handling the comments received during a public review" (https://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin/handling-the-comments-received-during-a-public-review). Of course, TCs like XLIFF that care about the acceptance and adoption of their work go beyond this to engage with those who take the time to provide thoughtful feedback and seek the best possible solution. 

Thanks for providing your input to the XLIFF & let me know if you have any questions on this. I'm happy to go into more detail. 

Best regards, 

/chet 

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Jörg Schütz <> wrote:

Hi Bryan,

Thanks a lot for your feedback. This looks very good indeed, and I'm looking forward to the revised version of the specification. And, of course, some of my comments are still open...

Regarding the Glossary module it will be also my pleasure to further discuss remaining issues with Ryan.

One question: How is the OASIS process with resolving comments, e.g. do you need my "official" acceptance of the proposed solution(s), which would be similar to the W3C process?

Thanks, and all the best,

Jörg

On July 01, 2013 at 23:30 (CEST), Schnabel, Bryan S wrote:

Jörg,

On behalf of the TC, I want to again thank you for the very useful

comments. As you know, we are tracking them here on our wiki

https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker

In an effort to not fill your inbox with individual replies, I hope you

don’t mind that I will reply to them, but comment number, in this single

email.

Several were simply accepted at face value, and will be implemented (as

documented on the wiki). Also, you and Yves have continued your

discussions publically on the comment list.

I will address the remainder here.

csprd01 015 - Processing Requirements for XML PIs: This was also called

to our attention in comment 013. We had an electronic ballot

(https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=2432 ), and voted

to say the Processing Instructions SHOULD be preserved.

csprd01 018 - Structure and Structural Elements: Glossary module: This

is also covered in comment 024. We are very close to resolving this. We

discussed this at the Face to Face meeting in London and came to

consensus

(https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201306/msg00009.html), We

then held a ballot

(https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/ballot.php?id=2438)

and voted to remove Glossary from File. In summary: A] make Glossary

Module more expressive: 1) make <glossentry> extensible by both elements

and attributes, 2) make children extensible by attributes, 3) Introduce

id to be able to reference back from <mrk type="term">; B] Remove

<glossary> from <file>

Ryan King is the owner of this topic and will be happy to follow up if

you have further questions.

csprd01 025 - Format Style Module: I am grateful for this good advice. I

will add a robust, more sophisticated example that supports images.

csprd01 026 - Metadata Module: This is also tied to comment 048. I think

it is very good advice. I will add the example you suggest.

Prior to the second public review I will send you a link to the improved

specification that incorporated the comments you sent, and I will ask

for your opinion of the resolution of your comments.

Thank you,

Bryan

-- 

This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the

OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC.

In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and

to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required

before posting.

Subscribe: 

Unsubscribe: 

List help: 

List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/

Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf

List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

Committee: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xliff

Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/

-- 

/chet 
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration 
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society

http://www.oasis-open.org

Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 

Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html 

TC Administration information and support is available at http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin

Follow OASIS on:
LinkedIn:    http://linkd.in/OASISopen

Twitter:        http://twitter.com/OASISopen
Facebook:  http://facebook.com/oasis.open