script and ITS 2.0 markup

<scribe> Scribe: Arle

Daniel: described the burden of dealing with the script solution for ITS rules in HTML/XHTML/etc. Needs switches in the code depending on the HTML flavor.
... All HTML tools will need to deal with this. Not XML server apps. But for HTML it is a big deal.
... Outside from ITS, I find it weird to have different DOMs depending on whether you use the XML or HTML serializations for HTML5.
... Solution was to wrap the rules in a CDATA section to ensure that we have the same character data nodes and one DOM, no matter what the serialization.
... We have provisions like this for JavaScript, you have to encapsulate the code if you use a < sign.
... It's not uncommon.

Arle: Anyone want to respond.

Yves: I don't have a strong opinion. I understand Daniel’s point and I would like to have one representation. But I am worried about the change at this point makes so much change. LQI and Provenance use the same method for standoff. So we would have to do the same.
... My implementation wouldn't have to change much. But others would. It's late in the process, but we should do the right technical thing.

Daniel: I think if implementations have implemented something from a preliminary spec, that is their problem. The goal is to make the best possible spec. The DOM difference is a BIG design issue, not something minor.

Yves: Timing is secondary for me. But I'm fine with the change.

Daniel: Has anyone pinged the HTML WG on this matter to know what they know about the DOM issue?

Yves: I think that Jirka is our main contact there. As he says, it is a case of preference to go one way or another, but I think Daniel has the technical argument here.

<scribe> ACTION: Daniel to ping HTML5 WG to ask them about this issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/10-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-553 - Ping HTML5 WG to ask them about this issue. [on Daniel Grasmick - due 2013-07-17].

NOTE: CHANGE TO DANIEL GLAZMAN, NOT GRASMICK.

Daniel: If the HTML5 WG doesn't think this is a big deal, I will withdraw my comment.

<pnietoca> I think the same as Yves

Pedro: I think we need to consider this seriously. I would like to stress one unusual factor. Our WG has been funded with the mandate to finish before December of this year. The funding enabled us to move quickly. In this case, we have show cases, final clients, etc.
... My only question is, if we can deal with this without putting the commitments of the project at risk, how will this affect things. If we can fix this in 2.1 perhaps?

Daniel: Basically, you would not change the technical contents of the spec, but to fix one minor issue. It would mean fixing five to ten tests that could be easily done. I imagine you have XHTML and HTML tests separately. So you could remove some tests and consolidate.
... Who is the activity leader? I'll ask Richard what he thinks of it.
... It might add a few weeks in the loop, but it shouldn't blow your schedule.

Pedro: For us it is important to make sure we match the EU timing requirements.

Daniel: I'm hitting the issue now because of the EU funding to work on this.
... It is a question of complexity, code maintainability, saving an HTML doc into XHML (and back), changing flavors, etc.

<fsasaki> hi all, for the record, please don't decide about the change today. But have a straw poll. It would be good to see in the minutes votes (just one per particpant) like: 1) want CDATA 2) do not want CDATA 3) would be fine with both or have no opinion

Yves: Could we hear from Karl or Pablo as implementers? Do they see it as a big issue?

Pablo: For me it is not a big issue, but I think it would be better to save trouble with CDATA, but it's not big.

Karl: I didn't try it yet, so I don't know for certain, but I don't imagine it is big.

Daniel: There is a fourth possibility beyond Felix’s 3: I ping the HTML5 WG and ask them for input.

<pnietoca> I agree with Daniel on this last one

<joerg> Pinging the HTML5 WG should definitely be the first action

<daveL> for TCD we would vote 3) would be fine with both or have no opinion

Des: I'm trying to catch up with this. Just to be clear, wrapping the rules in CDATA, there is no localizable content wrapped in CDATA? Correct?

Daniel: Correct.

<Ankit> for DCU: 3)

Daniel: That way, you just need the first child of the <script> element and you get it and then you have one way of manipulating it.
... In fact if we could have the ITS rules subtree in HTML, I would prefer that, but we can't. They aren't parsed. We can't get them.

Arle: Poll on the IRC.

Option 1: want CDATA.

<glazou> glazou, 1

Option 2: Don't want it

<Yves_> for ENLASO: 3

<tadej> 3

<leroy> TCD 3

Option 3: Fine either way or no opinion.

<kfritsche> 3

<SebastianS> 3 for ]init[

<pnietoca> I vote 3) both options are fine with me

<Des> 3

<fsasaki> hi all, again,

<Milan> Milan 3

Arle: Seems there is no consensus. HTML WG would offer value here.

<fsasaki> just to make sure: are people aware that 3) will include people need to update tests and implementations? would be good to know that too, for the IRC record(.

Felix: That was discussed before you appeared on the IRC. People seem to be aware.

<pnietoca> I don't mind updating the tests

<fsasaki> thanks arle, could people say again: 1) ok with updating my tests 2) not ok with updating tests. thanks

<glazou> thanks people

Arle: Another poll, per Felix's request.

<Yves_> Enlaso: 1 (ok with updating the test)

<pnietoca> 1) ok with updating my tests

<tadej> 1

<leroy> 1

<Ankit> 1) ok with updating tests

<Pedro> 1

<Des> 1 (We're not fully implemented anyway

<Milan> 1

<Pedro> Des, very smart!

<Des> Lol

<kfritsche> 1 okay with testing (but not sure about in which time frame) [sorry for late post]

]init[ implementation of ITS 2.0

Sebastian: I have forwarded our import and export files to the group. Would ask for input. We have a freeze until Monday. Thanks to Yves for helping us spot one problem.
... From the beginning, we use translate/no-translate (to match mtype="protect")
... We use annotations (scribe: some things missed here)
... We didn't find in the XLIFF mapping what mtype to use for locale filter. We also used comments for some other things.
... What namespace to use for localization note.
... We use XSLT transformation and XParser for Java. We have a theoretically unlimited way of nesting elements (limited only by memory). For XLIFF we use Okapi.

Sebastian: I've sent the ODT and XLIff file. There are also binary files in our deliverable.
... Information missing is in extra files so we have a valid XLIFF file conforming to the schema.

Yves: A few other notes. I'm looking at the ODT_XLIFF file
... You have a namespace called itsxliff that matches the its namespace definition. I think it should match itsx.

Sebastian: We use Okapi but had to tweak it a bit. Extended the filter for XLIFF Writer.

Yves: Just so you know, on the xliff element the namespace seems wrong.

<Yves_> <mrk mtype="x-its">vitae porta</mrk>

<fsasaki> hi all again. Arle: can you come back after the ]init[ presentation and ask again whether the people are ok with changing testing by end of August? The timing is critical. And getting a clear "yes or no, I can do the testing in the given time" is essential

Sebastian: We had to use that because the mapping is marked as "to do".
... If you have time/motivation, send us your comments.
... We can make simple changes very quickly.

Christian: I have a completely different issue. No looking at the document, I wonder if/when we might be able to provide additional details.
... Would your work become part of the official Libre Office distribution, or do you have a different mechanism in mind?

Sebastian: We will use LGPL Libre Office extension.
... We have to discuss bundling?
... If nobody has a problem with LGPL, we will link to Okapi, but don't want to replicate Okapi.

Christian: What happens if Okapi progresses but your extension does not? Will it mean the extension will be stuck in an outdated version of Okapi?

Sebastian: two possibilities: (1) separate downloads; (2) bundled download in one place.
... We have not only ITS ODT, but XLIFF reusing existing work.

Christian: Also, note that we want to create general outreach videos. Having some related to the tools would be nice. If you already have one or could make one, it would be cool.

Sebastian: Yes. We have a video unit.

Handling of inline global rules in (X)HTML (again)

Poll question: Can we do testing by the end of August? (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) Don't know.

Des: It depends on when the spec is updated.

Felix, anything to add here?

<fsasaki> hi all again, people should be aware that this change means: delaying ITS 2.0 proposed recommendation until mid august and final recommendation until end of september - at least

<fsasaki> so timing is critical for doing this. and here we cannot forget the EU funding which ends end of December.

Pedro mentioned this issue, Felix.

<fsasaki> thanks, Arle

Arle: I think we can't solve this in five minutes.

Karl: Let's take it in email.

<SebastianS> May I ask you, whether there is a deadline for the XLIFF-Mapping (esp. for LocaleFilter and LocalisationNote)?

Yves: We are supposed to have the deliverable at the end of September and there is a lot of mapping to be done, but I hope to have it by the end of August.

Sebastian: I'm asking because our internal deadline is July, so we may have to implement a few categories with placeholders in the meantime.

Yves: We may be able to prioritize the categories you need. We will get something stable for locale filter and localization note.

<fsasaki> hi all again, will you still answer the poll question during this call? "Can we do testing by the end of August? (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) Don't know.". Or is the answer of all "don't know"?

Sebastian: Terminology is an issue. Translate will use protected.

It seems the consensus is "don't know"

<Pedro> The main iussue about the CDATA change is if we will reach a moment where we have to decide: changing and not getting the EU commintment, or getting the EU commintment and changing later. I hope both things are compatible.

<fsasaki> thanks, Arle - that's an interesting "consensus" :) but good to know - it helps to estimate the realism of really doing this change. I will write a mail to the list later.

<fsasaki> Pedro, what do you mean by "EU commintment"?

We want to get feedback on this by next week. Not sure who to assign the action to for this.

<glazou> Pedro, again, I think we can live with the current spec if that's a too expensive change, but you guys have to understand and probably note in the spec it's a burden on implementors…

<fsasaki> you can give the action to me

Felix, we want to resolve this quickly, but there were too many uncertains.

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to collect feedback on whether testing can be completed by the end of August. Due July 17. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/10-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-554 - Collect feedback on whether testing can be completed by the end of August. Due July 17. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-07-17].

<Pedro> I mean to have as outreach of the LT-Web project an stable and approved ITS 2.0 that allow to disseminate and impementing in real life.

<fsasaki> thanks for noting that, glazou, very helpful. note to all: I will also check to see what people in the IA domain think

<Yves_> Just a reminder: the change would affect also LQI and Prov standoff.

<fsasaki> Pedro, understand, Yves_ thanks for the reminder

<fsasaki> close action-553

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-553 Ping HTML5 WG to ask them about this issue..

<Pedro> Thank you, glazou.

<glazou> np

topics not handled today

Tabling XLIFF mapping and other ITS IG WG work items for next call.

Also, for the agenda next time, LQI and MQM.

<fsasaki> unfortunately regrets for next week - I have to be in disneyland (tokio) ...