- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:43 +0200
- To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hi all,
I tried to clean up last week's minutes, see
http://www.w3.org/2013/05/15-mlw-lt-minutes.html
and below as text. Let me know if something is missing / wrong.
Best,
Felix
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
MLW-LT WG
15 May 2013
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013May/0125.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2013/05/15-mlw-lt-irc
Attendees
Present
Yves, Ankit, chriLi, Karl, marcis, Jirka, leroy,
DaveLewis, Milan
Regrets
Pedro, Maurcio, Pablo, Felix
Chair
Dave
Scribe
kfritsche
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Quick test suite update
2. [6]extensibility in its:rules
3. [7]Elements Within Text
4. [8]Best Practice: XLIFF mapping: LQI/LQR
* [9]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: kfritsche
dF_: main topic consensus to publish last call
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2013May/0125.html
[10]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013May/0125.html
dF_: moving topics around
Quick test suite update
leroy: we have two test per category and reached over 80%
... did some updating to elements within text and translate
dF_: we have conformance for each data category
<dF_>
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2013May/0125.html
[11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013May/0125.html
dF_: ITS2.0 is moving to second last call, so participants best
practice, which is in the IG maling list, which is chaired by
yves
... everyone is welcome to join this
chriLi: 80% sounds like there is a gap
<dF_>
[12]http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.github.com/finnle
/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/master/its2.0/testSuiteDashboard.html#tests-
current-state-details
[12]
http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/master/its2.0/testSuiteDashboard.html#tests-current-state-details
dF_: target and commitment is 100%
... but important for conformance is two test for each data
category, which is required by W3C
kfritsche: changes because of HTML5 got the coverage down
dF_: current conformance is high enough to get to second last
call
<dF_> 0) Topic: extensibility in its:rules
extensibility in its:rules
dF_: Cocomore/Linguaserve using ITS extension in its:rules
... this would result in a schema change
... but consensus sound good
<Yves_> Can we have also non-ITS attributes in ITS elements?
(with same processing as non-ITS elements: they can be ignore)
Jirka: I can do the schema changes, for this also a small
change in the spec is needed
<dF_>
[13]http://services.w3.org/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org
%2FInternational%2Fmultilingualweb%2Flt%2Fdrafts%2Fits20%2Ftool
s%2Fxslt%2Fdisco-for-its20.xsl&xmlfile=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org
%2FInternational%2Fmultilingualweb%2Flt%2Ftrack%2Fapi%2Fdump%3F
full&content-type=&submit=transform
[13]
http://services.w3.org/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FInternational%2Fmultilingualweb%2Flt%2Fdrafts%2Fits20%2Ftools%2Fxslt%2Fdisco-for-its20.xsl&xmlfile=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FInternational%2Fmultilingualweb%2Flt%2Ftrack%2Fapi%2Fdump%3Ffull&content-type=&submit=transform
dF_: no open last call comments
Jirka: this is not a normative change its just a clarification
chriLi: I have problems to spotting it
kfritsche: its the its:readinessrules, the example is wrong
there to use its, it has to be itsx
Yves_: Can we have also non-ITS attributes in ITS elements?
(with same processing as non-ITS elements: they can be ignore)
<Yves_> just with its-extension namespace would be ok
Jirka: maybe yves is proposing to allowing additional
attributes to its:rules
<Yves_> yes, that's what I'm asking
<Yves_> statement
<Yves_> either allowing just its-extension or any namespace
would be fine with me. I'm just asking if we can have non-ITS
attributes in ITS elements
dF_: trying to summarize, everyone is okay with adding its
extension (itsx)
Jirka: we should allow extension attributes for its rules as
well
<Yves_> Sound good to me too.
[kfritsche agrees with Jirka]
dF_: whats with deleting
Jirka: we don't define any processing, so we shouldn't say
anything about it
<Yves_> I agree with Jirka. just say extensions can be ignored.
dF_: i'm not sure if the changes needed for this are normative
... we could go for the second last call, if we think that this
doesn't need a normative change
... we haven't addressed extensibility at all before
... so i would suggest to move consensus to last call for next
week, after this change is done
<Yves_> I can try
dF_: jirka, yves, karl are the most interested in the topic,
can you propases spec and schema changes till next week
Jirka: i could do the schema change
dF_: consensus should be reached till end of week
<dF_> ACTION: Yves to propose spec change to address
extensibility in general [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/15-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-527 - Propose spec change to address
extensibility in general [on Yves Savourel - due 2013-05-22].
<scribe> ACTION: Jirka to propose change for schema changes for
extensibility [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/15-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-528 - Propose change for schema
changes for extensibility [on Jirka Kosek - due 2013-05-22].
dF_: with this we can't do a consensus to publish last call
skipping topic: Consensus to publish Last Call
<Yves_> related to last call..
Elements Within text
<Yves_> We may also need/want to change Element Within text:
Silvia has a good point about <script> that it should be nested
rather than within-text
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2013May/0133.html This would change the text in the
specification But maybe it's just a minor change that can be
dealt with in during the second last call.
[16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013May/0133.html
dF_: can we maybe address this to, till next week? can anybody
address this?
<scribe> ACTION: daveL to formulate change for elements within
text, because of script-tag [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/15-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-529 - Formulate change for elements
within text, because of script-tag [on David Lewis - due
2013-05-22].
Best Practice: XLIFF mapping: LQI/LQR
dF_: best practices are not WG, this are for the IG
<Yves_> the reasoning is in the email.
<Yves_> see also
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013
May/0012.html
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013May/0012.html
<Yves_> The initial reasoning is here:
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013
May/0003.html
[19]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013May/0003.html
dF_: most of the partners now working on the 1.0 mapping, but
tilde needes also a 1.2 mapping
<marcis> We support (officially) only 1.2
<marcis> The question from our side is, whether there will be
now changes? Or ... we leave everything as is? Our module
currently adds mrk tags as it is required by the mapping doc.
daveL: in situation like tilde adding annotation into a
existing xliff file, they have to use the mrk
<marcis> In HTML we actually do not generate a useless <span>
tag if there is one already ...
<Yves_> Marcis: it should affect TAWS much see my answer of
this morning. "Note also that this would not affect Tilde's
implementation too much, since TAWS mostly *adds* annotations
to the existing XLIFF document, "
daveL: yves point is good, but its hard to add this in already
generated xliff files
dF_: the change does affect you or not?
marcis: it definitely affects us, because we always use mrk
... for HTML we check if a element is already exists and add
attributes there, instead of adding a span
... it would be no problems to use the xliff types for us, if
we agree on this
dF_: do you check for its attributes only in mrk or on all
elements
marcis: for us its not a problem to do this and to add ITS
annotations to already existing elements
... problem is currenlty the timing, because we are stop
working on it at end of may
... and we need time to implements changes
... so it would be good to resolve it very soon
dF_: this has to be solved asap, so resume this discussion on
the mailing list as we are at the top of the hour
... would be best to have a consensus till next week for this
... hopefully we can publish last call next week
... meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: daveL to formulate change for elements within
text, because of script-tag [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/15-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Jirka to propose change for schema changes for
extensibility [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/15-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Yves to propose spec change to address
extensibility in general [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/15-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([24]CVS log)
$Date: 2013-05-20 08:31:07 $
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 15:45:16 UTC