← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →
XLIFF TC Meeting Minutes - 2013-10-15
Hi all, there is no way to fit Asanka's excellent minutes into the box allotted for them in kavi, so I am sending them directly.. I made just minor fixes: The proposed meeting minutes of record: DavidF: - Attendance: H, S, T, DF, L, K, Y, B, J, U, DW, A - Don't see Fredrick; 12 voters; we have quorum. Bryan: - Meeting minutes:https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201310/msg00003.html seconded by Tom & Yves. No objections; - We have just concluded the 2nd public review; concluded on the 15th of October; a very active public review with very constructive comments. - Public review comments tracker URL: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker - We consider comments of the public review 1 to be frozen; the comments for the public review 2 are active but we are not accepting any new comments; DavidF: - I added a comment today, it came from the admins in Sep; those are really minor issues; I added them as 146. Bryan: - It was listed as 24 September. - We will need to triage each of these comments; comments 100-111 have been already triaged in the 1st meeting in September; DavidF: - I did some filtering on the items; I have made a few groups of “editorial” and “minor fixes” that I believe we could approve in one go. I think these can be summery approved. * Minor editorial changes - owned by David: 102, 110, 116, 124, 128, 133, 135, 136, 146 * Typos - owned by Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125 * Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145 * Example fix - owned by Bryan: 134 Yves: - What do you mean by approved? Did you make the changes? DavidF: - I called them editorial changes that can be fixed as suggested. Bryan: - What are you asking us to approve? DavidF: - I am proposing to approve the (above listed) comments to be fixed as suggested; Bryan: -You are proposing that we accept those proposed solutions by the commenters, as approved by the TC. I will second that. - Tom may need to leave early; will it affect the quorum? DavidF: - No DavidF: - Proposal: I move to approve the above comments as editorial changes, to be fixed as suggested by the commenters. Bryan: - Seconds the proposal. Yves: - Some of those comments have no suggestion; for example 102, there is no wording corresponding to any suggestion. DavidF: - Yes. There is no wording, it is just a clarification. Yves: - I've seen clarifications leading to problems. I'd like to see the actual wordings. DavidF: - Let's take out 102 then. Bryan: - Are there any others that belong to the same category? Yves: - I don't know. I didn't get a chance to have a look; Bryan: - Shall we quickly go through each of these? DavidF: - I wouldn't go through the Typos Bryan: - I agree. DavidF: - 134 is an example fix; Bryan: - I agree; we would change the <x> to <ph> and we would make sure that the <ph> has the required id attribute. DavidF: - Next is 110: xml:space; I am happy to fix it as suggested. Yves: - There is no specific suggestion; DavidF: - What it basically says is that it should have the link, and the link is a normative link... Yves: - It should say white space should be spelled consistently; we have no corresponding change to it; how are you going to spell it? I know it is not important but... list of changes along with the resolution so people could look at that and approve. Bryan: - Let's take out 110 then; DavidF: - 116 is about undefined values in metadata; cannot be formatted as code because it is not a value; Bryan: - The proposal is to use unformatted text, clear to me DavidF: - 124: Alphabetical order; clear enough Bryan: - Clear to me DavidF: - 128: There is a missing element that accepts extended attributes, an error correction Bryan: - I agree, clear to me DavidF: - 133: Naming issues, alphabetical issues and formatting issues Bryan: - We have a convention that says when we have concatenated words; we make the first word lower case and upper case the second word; DavidF: - 135: No suggestions, it's a clarification; this should be taken out; - 136: error correction, notes missing in the list of extendable elements that seems to be clear; - 146: I fixed that already in the new working draft; - The new group for the summery approval: * Editorial, fix as suggested DavidF: 116, 124, 128, 133, 136, 146 * Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125 * Bryan: 134 example fix Bryan: - I second this new list. DavidF: - I am going to take the votes; yes= approve the proposed solutions no= do not approve the proposed solutions abstain = abstain from voting Helena = yes, Shirly = Yes, Tom = Yes, DavidF=Yes, Kevin = Yes, Yves= Abstain, Bryan = Yes, Joachim=Yes, Uwe=Yes, DavidW=Yes, Asanka=Yes 11 yes, 1 abstain Bryan: - Aside from the non-controversial ones, several of these will require more work; I propose the remaining five minutes to take a look at the owners for each of the comments; some of the comments were not clear to me, about the ownership; I used “tbd” to denote them; we have 12 tbds on the list; people who received assignment from me, are there any objections for having your name as the owner? DavidF: - I am fine with my assignments. Bryan: - are you ok with your assignments Tom? Tom: - ok. Bryan: - I am ok with my assignments, Frederick isn't here. I will ask Frederick, Ryan isn't here either, I will also email him; - Comment # 118: no link between type and subtype for inline code; this is something that should be owned by Tom. DavidF: - there are two parts to it, one that - we aim to have the type and subtype – sub-property types with processing requirements or constraints; that basically subtype must not exist without the type; that is fair to require; you must update the subtype if you updated the type. I believe this should be a part of the fix; this is not proposed by the commenter; Yves, would you agree with also linking them with constrains and processing requirements? Yves: - Don't we already have that? David: - Not sure; Yves: - There is already that. DavidF: - Sorry for my confusion, if this in place, this is a simple fix. I agree with the proposed solution and I can take it; Bryan: - DavidF takes the ownership of 118. - 119 is definitions and spelling of quote type ; type value for quote is defined as ... we have no owner for this item, it seems pretty clear and non-controversial, I will take the ownership; Yves: -What's the definition of quote exactly? We are just looking at the ownership; Bryan: - I will take ownership of 119; - 123 was withdrawn by Yves; - Next to be determined is xml:lang and xml:space comment #127: .... so who'd like to take the ownership of this item? I understand this one relatively well; I will take the ownership of this one. - Next comment: #130: about translation annotation, candidate annotation; DavidF: - I am happy to take the ownership of 130; Bryan: - How about 131; sections in the specification; David: - We probably could do it now; it is worth discussing now - it is a very big reshuffle if we went for it; I don't think we are unhappy with the appendixes; Bryan: - Are you proposing that we solve this right now? DavidF: - I prefer to stay with the structure as is; If the TC thinks ... i am for the second proposal; Bryan: - I support Yves’ proposal. That we move the .. into the numbered portion of the specification; DavidF: - I'd probably make a ballot now. - Options: a) keep as it is, b) use sections, c) use sub-sections Bryan: - Any discussions needed before the ballot? I second. DavidF: - H: 3 S:(offline) T: 2 df: 1 L: abs Y: 3 K: 3 B: 3 J: 3 U : 3 DW: 3 A: 3 - 3 is the clear winner; 8 votes for 3; this is resolved. I can own the implementation; Bryan: - We have 8 mins left. Updates on the promotion liaison subcommittee meeting? DavidF: - People who want to stay for the P&L SC can stay for the call; it will be about the status of the state of the art report; Bryan: - I propose that we make changes to the remaining agenda items as follows; - Request for new business for next time; then work on couple of more tbds - Is there any new business proposed for the agenda next time? No new business. DavidF: - Before we jump to the tbds, we need to discuss comment #112 schema issues - I am not sure whether this is already resolved as Tom already committed the new schemas; Tom: - I believe everything has been completed and committed; DavidF: - Yves, are you happy with the changes that Tom made? Yves: - Yes. It's working now; Bryan: - I propose we go ahead and close this; this could be re-opened as a placeholder for further testing when making new fixes; DavidF: - It is good to have opened it for others; - It was not a formal approval, but no dissents reported. Bryan: - Good work on making those fixes. Tom: - Apologies, for the necessity of the fixes; Bryan: - The schemas are in much better shape; - Are there any tbds that needs to be further discussed? - Remaining tbds: 132, 137, 138,140, 141, 143,144 DavidF: - 132 should be owned by you; Byran : - Agreed. 132 will be owned by me. DavidF: - It is better to assign all of them now. Bryan: - 137: Yves and I have debated this on the mailing list - we just drop the note ; xliff is an exchange format not a processing format, this was unfriendly for some tools; or else we can make a decision to drop this note; are there any other thoughts? DavidF: - The note is very important; I wouldn't drop it; it is just a note; many times people have suggested with changes to the specification for xliff to be processing friendly; the note clarifies that xliff is an interchange format; we can add another note ; Bryan: - Accept to have the second note; - DavidF, can you own that? DavidF: - I can. Bryan: - 138 - Tom listed this is a schema ambiguity; Tom is not in the call; Ii agree that there are ambiguities; this could be assigned to Tom to resolve on the mailing list; DavidF: - 139 should be owned by Ryan rather than me; … Bryan: - Tom noted that specification allows .. to be added to file, skeleton, group, unit, glossary, match. DavidF: - Those are the extension points; I think Ryan is the best person. Bryan: - We will deal with the remain tbds in the mailing list; - Meeting adjourned.DavidF: - Attendance: H, S, T, DF, L, K, Y, B, J, U, DW, A - Don't see Fredrick; 12 voters; we have quorum. Bryan: - Meeting minutes:https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201310/msg00003.html seconded by Tom & Yves. No objections; - We have just concluded the 2nd public review; concluded on the 15th of October; a very active public review with very constructive comments. - Public review comments tracker URL: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker - We consider comments of the public review 1 to be frozen; the comments for the public review 2 are active but we are not accepting any new comments; DavidF: - I added a comment today, it came from the admins; those are really minor issues; I added them as 146. Bryan: - It was listed as 24 September. - We will need to triage each of these comments; comments 100-111 have been already triaged in the 1st meeting in September; DavidF: - I did some filtering on the items; I have made a few groups of “editorial” and “minor fixes” that I believe we could approve in one go. I think these can be summery approved. * Minor editorial changes - owned by David: 102, 110, 116, 124, 128, 133, 135, 136, 146 * Typos - owned by Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125 * Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145 * Example fix - owned by Bryan: 134 Yves: - What do you mean by approved? Did you make the changes? DavidF: - I called them editorial changes; they can be fixed as suggested. Bryan: - What are you asking us to approve? DavidF: - I am proposing to approve (the above listed) the comments to be fix as suggested; Bryan: -You are proposing that we accept those proposed solutions by the commenters, as approved by the TC. I will second that. - Tom may need to leave early; will it affect the quorum? DavidF: - No DavidF: - Proposal: I move to approve the above comments as editorial changes, to be fixed as suggested by the commenters. Bryan: - Seconds the proposal. Yves: - Some of those comments have no suggestion; for example 102, there is no wording corresponding to any suggestion. DavidF: - Yes. There is no wording, it is just a clarification. Yves: - I've seen clarifications leading to problems. I'd like to see the actual wordings. DavidF: - Let's take out 102 then. Bryan: - Are there any others that belong to the same category? Yves: - I don't know. I didn't get a chance to have a look everything; Bryan: - Shall we quickly go through each of these? DavidF: - I wouldn't go through the Typos Bryan: - I agree. DavidF: - 134 is an example fix; Bryan: - I agree; we would change the <x> to <ph> and we would make sure that the <ph> has the required id attribute. DavidF: - Next is 110: xml:space; I am happy to fix it as suggested. Yves: - There is no specific suggestion; DavidF: - What it basically says is that it should have the link, and the link is a normative link... Yves: - It should say white space should be spelled consistently; we have no corresponding change to it; how are you going to spell it? I know it is not important but... list of changes along with the resolution so people could look at that and approve. Bryan: - Let's take out 110 then; DavidF: - 116 is about undefined metadata; cannot be formatted as scope because it is not a value; Bryan: - The proposal is to use unformatted text, clear to me DavidF: - 124: Alphabetical order; clear enough Bryan: - Clear to me DavidF: - 128: There is a missing element that accepts extended attributes, an error correction Bryan: - I agree, clear to me DavidF: - 133: Naming issues, alphabetical issues and formatting issues Bryan: - We have a convention that says when we have concatenated words; we make the first word lower case and upper case the second word; DavidF: - 135: No suggestions, it's a clarification; this should be taken out; - 136: error correction, notes missing in the list of extendable elements that seems to be clear; - 146: I fixed that in the new working draft; - The new group for the summery approval: * Editorial, fix as suggested: * DavidF: 116, 124, 128, 133, 136, 146 * Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125 * Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145 * Bryan: 134 example fix Bryan: - I second this new list. DavidF: - I am going to take the votes; yes= approve the proposed solutions no= do not approve the proposed solutions abstain = abstain from voting Helena=Yes, Shirly=Yes, Tom=Yes, DavidF=Yes, Lucia=Yes, Kevin=Yes, Yves=Abstain, Bryan=Yes, Joachim=Yes, Uwe=Yes, DavidW=Yes, Asanka=Yes 11 yes, 1 abstain Bryan: - Aside from the non-controversial ones, several of these will require more work; I propose the remaining five minutes to take a look at the owners for each of the comments; some of the comments were not clear to me, about the ownership; I used “tbd” to denote them; we have 12 tbds on the list; people who received assignment from me, are there any objections for having your name as the owner? DavidF: - I am fine with my assignments. Bryan: - are you ok with your assignments Tom? Tom: - ok. Bryan: - I am ok with my assignments, Frederick isn't here. I will ask Frederick, Ryan isn't here either, I will also email him; - Comment # 118: no link between type and subtype for inline code; this is something that should be owned by Tom. DavidF: - there are two parts to it, one that - we aim to have the type and subtype – sub-property types with processing requirements or constraints; that basically subtype must not exist without the type; that is fair to require; you must update the subtype if you updated the type. I believe this should be a part of the fix; this is not proposed by the commenter; Yves, would you agree with also linking them with constrains and processing requirements? Yves: - Don't we already have that? David: - Not sure; Yves: - There is already that. DavidF: - Sorry for my confusion, if this in place, this is a simple fix. I agree with the proposed solution and I can take it; Bryan: - DavidF takes the ownership of 118. - 119 is definitions and spelling of quote type ; type value for quote is defined as ... we have no owner for this item, it seems pretty clear and non-controversial, I will take the ownership; Yves: -What's the definition of quote exactly? We are just looking at the ownership; Bryan: - I will take ownership of 119; - 123 was withdrawn by Yves; - Next to be determined is xml:lang and xml:space comment #127: .... so who'd like to take the ownership of this item? I understand this one relatively well; I will take the ownership of this one. - Next comment: #130: about translation annotation, candidate annotation; DavidF: - I am happy to take the ownership of 130; Bryan: - How about 131; sections in the specification; David: - We probably could do it now; it is worth discussing now - it is a very big reshuffle if we went for it; I don't think we are unhappy with the appendices; Bryan: - Are you proposing that we solve this right now? DavidF: - I prefer to stay with the structure as is; If the TC thinks we need the rehaul. i am for the second proposal; Bryan: - I support Yves’ proposal. That we move the modules into the numbered portion of the specification; DavidF: - I'd probably make a ballot now. - Options: a) keep as it is, b) use sections, c) use sub-sections Bryan: - Any discussions needed before the ballot? I second. DavidF: - H:3 S:(offline) T:2 df:1 L:abs Y:3 K:3 B:3 J:3 U: 3 DW: 3 A:3 - 3 is the clear winner; 8 votes for 3; this is resolved. I can own the implementation; Bryan: - We have 8 mins left. Updates on the promotion liaison subcommittee meeting? DavidF: - People who want to stay for the P&L SC can stay for the call; it will be about the status of the state of the art report; Bryan: - I propose that we make changes to the remaining agenda items as follows; - Request for new business for next time; then work on couple of more tbds - Is there any new business proposed for the agenda next time? No new business. DavidF: - Before we jump to the tbds, we need to discuss comment #112 schema issues - I am not sure whether this is already resolved as Tom already committed the new schemas; Tom: - I believe everything has been completed and committed; DavidF: - Yves, are you happy with the changes that Tom made? Yves: - Yes. It's working now; Bryan: - I propose we go ahead and close this; this could be re-opened as a placeholder for further testing when making new fixes; DavidF: - It is good to have opened it for others; - It was not a formal approval, but no dissents reported. Bryan: - Good work on making those fixes. Tom: - Apologies, for the necessity of the fixes; Bryan: - The schemas are in much better shape; - Are there any tbds that needs to be further discussed? - Remaining tbds: 132, 137, 138,140, 141, 143,144 DavidF: - 132 should be owned by you; Byran : - Agreed. 132 will be owned by me. Bryan: - 137: Yves and I have debated this on the mailing list - we just drop the note ; xliff is an exchange format not a processing format, this was unfriendly for some tools; or else we can make a decision to drop this note; are there any other thoughts? DavidF: - The note is very important; I wouldn't drop it; it is just a note; many times people have suggested changes to the specification for xliff to be processing friendly; the note clarifies that xliff is an interchange format; processing is out of scope; Rtaher than dropping the note we can add another. Bryan: - Accept to have the second note; DavidF, can you own that? DavidF: - I can. Bryan: - 138 - Tom listed this is a schema ambiguity; Tom is not in the call; Ii agree that there are ambiguities; this could be assigned to Tom to resolve on the mailing list; DavidF: - 139 should be owned by Ryan rather than me; … Bryan: - Tom noted that specification allows ctr to be added to file, skeleton, group, unit, glossary, match. DavidF: - Those are the extension points; I think Ryan is the best person. Bryan: - We will deal with the remain tbds in the mailing list; - Meeting adjourned. Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Asanka.Wasala <> Date: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM Subject: XLIFF TC Meeting Minutes - 15-10-2013 To: "David.Filip" <> Cc: Dear Dr. David, The meeting minutes are given below. Kindly verify the numbers of the comments and also correct any mistakes before you publish.. Thank you, Kind regards Asanka ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DavidF: - Attendance: H, S, T, DF, L, K, Y, B, J, U, DW, A - Don't see Fredrick; 12 voters; we have quorum. Bryan: - Meeting minutes:https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201310/msg00003.html seconded by Tom & Yves. No objections; - We have just concluded the 2nd public review; concluded on the 15th of October; a very active public review with very constructive comments. - Public review comments tracker URL: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20Public%20Review%20submitted%20comments%20tracker - We consider comments of the public review 1 to be frozen; the comments for the public review 2 are active but we are not accepting any new comments; DavidF: - I added a comment today, it came from the admins; those are really minor issues; I added them as 146. Bryan: - It was listed as 24 September. - We will need to triage each of these comments; comments 100-111 have been already triaged in the 1st meeting in September; DavidF: - I did some filtering on the items; I have made a few groups of “editorial” and “minor fixes” that I believe we could approve in one go. I think these can be summery approved. * Minor editorial changes - owned by David: 102, 110, 116, 124, 128, 133, 135, 136, 146 * Typos - owned by Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125 * Schema appearance - owned by Tom: 145 * Example fix - owned by Bryan: 134 Yves: - What do you mean by approved? Did you make the changes? DavidF: - I called them editorial changes; they can be fixed as suggested. Bryan: - What are you asking us to approve? DavidF: - I am proposing to approve (the above listed) the comments to be fix as suggested; Bryan: -You are proposing that we accept those proposed solutions by the commenters, as approved by the TC. I will second that. - Tom may need to leave early; will it affect the quorum? DavidF: - No DavidF: - Proposal: I move to approve the above comments as editorial changes, to be fixed as suggested by the commenters. Bryan: - Seconds the proposal. Yves: - Some of those comments have no suggestion; for example 102, there is no wording corresponding to any suggestion. DavidF: - Yes. There is no wording, it is just a clarification. Yves: - I've seen clarifications leading to problems. I'd like to see the actual wordings. DavidF: - Let's take out 102 then. Bryan: - Are there any others that belong to the same category? Yves: - I don't know. I didn't get a chance to have a look everything; Bryan: - Shall we quickly go through each of these? DavidF: - I wouldn't go through the Typos Bryan: - I agree. DavidF: - 134 is an example fix; Bryan: - I agree; we would change the <x> to <ph> and we would make sure that the <ph> has the required id attribute. DavidF: - Next is 110: xml:space; I am happy to fix it as suggested. Yves: - There is no specific suggestion; DavidF: - What it basically says is that it should have the link, and the link is a normative link... Yves: - It should say white space should be spelled consistently; we have no corresponding change to it; how are you going to spell it? I know it is not important but... list of changes along with the resolution so people could look at that and approve. Bryan: - Let's take out 110 then; DavidF: - 116 is about undefined metadata; cannot be formatted as scope because it is not a value; Bryan: - The proposal is to use unformatted text, clear to me DavidF: - 124: Alphabetical order; clear enough Bryan: - Clear to me DavidF: - 128: There is a missing element that accepts extended attributes, an error correction Bryan: - I agree, clear to me DavidF: - 133: Naming issues, alphabetical issues and formatting issues Bryan: - We have a convention that says when we have concatenated words; we make the first word lower case and upper case the second word; DavidF: - 135: No suggestions, it's a clarification; this should be taken out; - 136: error correction, notes missing in the list of extendable elements that seems to be clear; - 146: I fixed that in the new working draft; - The new group for the summery approval: * Editorial, fix as suggested DavidF: 116, 124, 128, 133, 136, 146 * Tom: 106, 115, 117, 121, 125 * Bryan: 134 example fix Bryan: - I second this new list. DavidF: - I am going to take the votes; yes= approve the proposed solutions no= do not approve the proposed solutions abstain = abstain from voting Helena = yes, Shirly = Yes, Tom = Yes, DavidF=Yes, Kevin = Yes, Yves= Abstain, Bryan = Yes, Joachim=Yes, Uwe=Yes, DavidW=Yes, Asanka=Yes 11 yes, 1 abstain Bryan: - Aside from the non-controversial ones, several of these will require more work; I propose the remaining five minutes to take a look at the owners for each of the comments; some of the comments were not clear to me, about the ownership; I used “tbd” to denote them; we have 12 tbds on the list; people who received assignment from me, are there any objections for having your name as the owner? DavidF: - I am fine with my assignments. Bryan: - are you ok with your assignments Tom? Tom: - ok. Bryan: - I am ok with my assignments, Frederick isn't here. I will ask Frederick, Ryan isn't here either, I will also email him; - Comment # 118: no link between type and subtype for inline code; this is something that should be owned by Tom. DavidF: - there are two parts to it, one that - we aim to have the type and subtype – sub-property types with processing requirements or constraints; that basically subtype must not exist without the type; that is fair to require; you must update the subtype if you updated the type. I believe this should be a part of the fix; this is not proposed by the commenter; Yves, would you agree with also linking them with constrains and processing requirements? Yves: - Don't we already have that? David: - Not sure; Yves: - There is already that. DavidF: - Sorry for my confusion, if this in place, this is a simple fix. I agree with the proposed solution and I can take it; Bryan: - DavidF takes the ownership of 118. - 119 is definitions and spelling of quote type ; type value for quote is defined as ... we have no owner for this item, it seems pretty clear and non-controversial, I will take the ownership; Yves: -What's the definition of quote exactly? We are just looking at the ownership; Bryan: - I will take ownership of 119; - 123 was withdrawn by Yves; - Next to be determined is xml:lang and xml:space comment #127: .... so who'd like to take the ownership of this item? I understand this one relatively well; I will take the ownership of this one. - Next comment: #130: about translation annotation, candidate annotation; DavidF: - I am happy to take the ownership of 130; Bryan: - How about 131; sections in the specification; David: - We probably could do it now; it is worth discussing now - it is a very big reshuffle if we went for it; I don't think we are unhappy with the appendixes; Bryan: - Are you proposing that we solve this right now? DavidF: - I prefer to stay with the structure as is; If the TC thinks ... i am for the second proposal; Bryan: - I support Yves’ proposal. That we move the .. into the numbered portion of the specification; DavidF: - I'd probably make a ballot now. - Options: a) keep as it is, b) use sections, c) use sub-sections Bryan: - Any discussions needed before the ballot? I second. DavidF: - H: 3 S:(offline) T: 2 df: 1 L: abs Y: 3 K: 3 B: 3 J: 3 U : 3 DW: 3 A: 3 - 3 is the clear winner; 8 votes for 3; this is resolved. I can own the implementation; Bryan: - We have 8 mins left. Updates on the promotion liaison subcommittee meeting? DavidF: - People who want to stay for the P&L SC can stay for the call; it will be about the status of the state of the art report; Bryan: - I propose that we make changes to the remaining agenda items as follows; - Request for new business for next time; then work on couple of more tbds - Is there any new business proposed for the agenda next time? No new business. DavidF: - Before we jump to the tbds, we need to discuss comment #112 schema issues - I am not sure whether this is already resolved as Tom already committed the new schemas; Tom: - I believe everything has been completed and committed; DavidF: - Yves, are you happy with the changes that Tom made? Yves: - Yes. It's working now; Bryan: - I propose we go ahead and close this; this could be re-opened as a placeholder for further testing when making new fixes; DavidF: - It is good to have opened it for others; - It was not a formal approval, but no dissents reported. Bryan: - Good work on making those fixes. Tom: - Apologies, for the necessity of the fixes; Bryan: - The schemas are in much better shape; - Are there any tbds that needs to be further discussed? - Remaining tbds: 132, 137, 138,140, 141, 143,144 DavidF: - 132 should be owned by you; Byran : - Agreed. 132 will be owned by me. DavidF: - It is better to assign all of them now. Bryan: - 137: Yves and I have debated this on the mailing list - we just drop the note ; xliff is an exchange format not a processing format, this was unfriendly for some tools; or else we can make a decision to drop this note; are there any other thoughts? DavidF: - The note is very important; I wouldn't drop it; it is just a note; many times people have suggested with changes to the specification for xliff to be processing friendly; the note clarifies that xliff is an interchange format; we can add another note ; Bryan: - Accept to have the second note; - DavidF, can you own that? DavidF: - I can. Bryan: - 138 - Tom listed this is a schema ambiguity; Tom is not in the call; Ii agree that there are ambiguities; this could be assigned to Tom to resolve on the mailing list; DavidF: - 139 should be owned by Ryan rather than me; … Bryan: - Tom noted that specification allows .. to be added to file, skeleton, group, unit, glossary, match. DavidF: - Those are the extension points; I think Ryan is the best person. Bryan: - We will deal with the remain tbds in the mailing list; - Meeting adjourned.
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →