Dear all,
Please find below a summary of today’s discussion.
Attendance: Yoshito, Lucía, Rodolfo
Regrets: Bryan.
I. Administration
R: I move to approve 5th October meeting minutes. https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/202110/msg00003.html
Y: I second.
R: Meetings approved.
II. Technical work
A. Discussion & Roll Call. https://github.com/oasis-tcs/xliff-xliff-22/issues/4 (Rodolfo,
all)
R: I explained this issue to provide a way to associate note. We
are not breaking backwards compatibility, we are adding things. It is fine.
L: What does this mean in terms of version number?
R: We could change just the decimal as we are not breaking the backwards compatibility
and start working on 2.2.
Y: What were the changes in the schema between 2.0 and 2.1?
R: the schema is the same. If we make
the changes to allow pointing <note> to <segment>, we need to have a new version of the schema for 2.2.
Y: if we make those changes, the importance is that the files using 2.2 would need to be validated as well.
R: Yes, you would need a validator for that version. (Rodolfo
shows how his validator, depending on the version of XLIFF chooses one specific validator or another).
R: The rules for ref are not clear. So, I
propose the same syntax used in <mtc:match> for <note> as matches can point to segments.
R: Roll call: Here is the text: “Allow changes in the core schema to fix issues reported in GitHub even if that means changing version number.” Do you agree?
Yes: Yoshito, Rodolfo, Lucía.
R: Ballot approved.
L: What are the new steps?
R: We can add the attribute to the schema. And we remove the requirements. We publish a new draft of the schema for the next meeting. We can officially start
working on 2.2.
Y: I will add the github issue in our github. https://github.com/rmraya/OpenXLIFF/issues/13
L: Thank you. No new business. Meeting adjourned.
