XLIFF Inline Markup Subcommittee Teleconference - Summary
Every second Tuesday of every month at 14:00 UTC 7:00am PT, 8:00am MT, 10:00am ET 3:00pm London, 4:00pm Berlin
Teleconference meeting place:
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/408998929
Meeting ID: 408-998-929
You can use the following US phone number, or the VOIP option provided by GoToMeeting:
Dial 630-869-1010
Access Code: 408-998-929
Present: Yves, Jungwoo, Fredrik,
Regrets: Christian
Latest draft is here:
See http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/svn/xliff/trunk/xliff-20/xliff-core.pdf
=== Implementing F2F main changes
-- composite values for the type attribute Something like this:
type ::= <category>['/'<subcategory>]
<subcategory> ::= <authority>':'<value>
Or two attributes:
Like type and subType (or custType, or xType, or extType), with same values.
Need to define the values for the main category.
F: single attribute feels best solution to me.
Y: tend to agree.
J: single was what we agree in F2F
J will try to come up with an initial list
Y, F to try to do the same.
=== Bi-directionality details
Done in schema, specifications and test implementation
(only dir in data is missing in test implementation).
Y: Nothing new. Will work on getting the missing dir in data
F: Had a quick look at current draft and it looked ok
=== Annotations representation
ACTION ITEM: yves to work on implementation.
-> in progress
ACTION ITEM: Yves to edit the draft to reflect the sm/em change
-> Done.
Also: <note> has an id now, so it can be used with comment annotation.
=== Elements and Attributes Names
Time to start choosing final names for the inline markup.
See spreadsheet here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Av8I1YVQlYmsdEwtZ0VEVmo5Y0ZLTndEcUlFMzZnZmc&output=html
Either enter suggestion in your column (add one if needed) (ask for the link to the editable table if you don't have it any more, or post an email with the suggestions)
ACTION ITEM: Yves to remind everyone.
=== Namespace?
We need to decide to which namespace the content markup should belong.
a- same as the core namespace
b- one separate namespace (but still belong to the core)
c- several separate namespaces (e.g. codes still belong to the core, but not annotations, etc.)
Y: prefer option a
F: like concept of separate ns in core, but see advantage of having it in the core ns.
Feel separate ns would make it easier for separate use. Using several namespaces for inline would not bring anything.
J: option a looks best
=== Any other business
TMX has looked at our model a bit.
Y: max size feature?
F: working on it. It would add an additional attribute in inline markup, as separate module.
-end
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
