W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org > November 2014

Re: [xliff] ITS module section(s) in the specification

From: Felix Sasaki <felix@sasakiatcf.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:01:16 +0100
Cc: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, XLIFF Main List <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>, public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <F740EF6C-B97F-444F-8C4D-7F3A0DA574FD@sasakiatcf.com>
To: Serge Gladkoff <serge.gladkoff@gmail.com>
Hi Serge, all,

Am 25.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb Serge Gladkoff <serge.gladkoff@gmail.com>:

> Dear Colleagues,
>  
> I am planning an informational update across language industry community shortly.
>  
> Can you please help me with short recap of the current status, of XLIFF2.1 / ITS 2.0 project, please?


This is just a personal statement: it is an ongoing project. FYI, we discussed to analyze the latest state at the next ITS IG call (8 December) and then see how to move forward.

Best,

Felix

- Felix

>  
> Very Best Regards,
> Serge Gladkoff
> GALA CRISP Lead
>  
>  
>  
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:felix@sasakiatcf.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 9:11 AM
> To: Dr. David Filip
> Cc: Yves Savourel; XLIFF Main List; public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [xliff] ITS module section(s) in the specification
>  
> Hi David, all,
>  
> Am 24.11.2014 um 23:58 schrieb Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>:
> 
> 
>  
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
> Am I missing something: If the specification is not finished, then the appendix should not be published, no matter if normative or not, no?
> 
> Felix, the specification is in progress, when it is finished then it can go into publishing/approval process. [csd -> csprd -> cs -> cos -> os]
> Currently, I provide from time to time editors draft printouts when a part that makes sense is finished.
>  
> The working draft has no level of approval whatsoever, it is just easier to discuss solutions IMHO with a strawman at hand..
>  
>  
> Thanks of the explanation. I think I understand the process. My main point was about what you said: 
>  
> „Again, the detailed specification is not done and I am not sure if it makes
> logical sense to make the appendix normative. I tend to think not atm..“
>  
> This sounded to me: you say that in the final specification (os) the appendix should not be normative?
>  
> - Felix
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 09:01:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:11:31 UTC