meeting_notes_20101110

Present: Sven, Yann, Micah, Peter, Derek

Apologies: Gabor.

Status Quo, feedback, Review of aims

Peter mentioned that he had heard some positive feedback following TAUS and Loc World.
Micah said he heard that a lot of people were interested but it was important that we get something done before we start inviting others to the group.
Sven stressed that we agreed with this and we would like to have both prototypes, documents and ideas ready.
Yan mentioned that GlobalSight is integrating with Open TM (formerly IBM TM 2).
Sven asked what was the next step for getting a prototype. Peter suggested that Sven’s document was an excellent starting point. Derek said that he thought the package was the crucial ingredient. Sven and Micah emphasised that content was important.
Peter raised the issue of how the tools would now what resources another tool could deal with. Sven said that some of his team were looking at this issue and he favoured some sort of repository. Micah asked whether this was another document. It was agreed it was but it was fault it was something we should deal with soon. Micah also mentioned that he would like to see a package go from tool a to tool b to tool c etc. before going back to the originating package.
Sven has said that his document will be available for review by next Monday. Micah suggested that the encryption part could be left out of Monday’s document. This document will describe what a prototype will look like. Feedback is needed on this by Monday 22nd. We will have a call on Wednesday 24th and there would commit to the prototype.

Micah's draft

Feedback on the approach

This differs from the XLIFF representation guide as they focus on file formats. Bryan Schnabel had a conversation with Sven where he was very positive about this and we should ‘go for it’.
We agreed that this representation guide will be useful for us. GlobalSight and Kilgray need to comment on this. Peter asked whether it could be done in Word.

Most important questions

Micah asked whether there was a need to include HTML. Sven stressed that they would need XHTML in there. It was agreed that there were no issues between this and the HTML representation guide which the XLIFF TC has produced.
Micah asked whether there should be 25 xliff files in the package or 1 xliff file with 25 file elements. It was felt that there was an issue with support for the file element and also that users prefer to work on one file at a time rather than one big file. It was agreed that we would take the approach of 1 file element per xliff file.
Micah raised the issue of how terminology is shared. He has proposed a way of dealing with terminology within the XLIFF. Peter asked why we were not going with the way proposed in Sven’s document. Sven said that the advantages of associating the term with a TU means that we can see a term is the right one for the segment.
Micah raised the issue of what level notes should be. We agreed to come back to this on November 24.

Next steps

Provide feedback