Re: LIFT Change Request for Comment: RFCs 1 & 2
John Hatton
I just tried, using a different browser (Chrome) and a different google
account; the links worked fine. Perhaps something is wrong with your
browser or google account? You can always make another...
Are you aware of someone consuming LIFT that requires 0.13? I suppose
you're going to say "Lexique Pro" :-) There's a good chance that it won't
be affected, but it's worth a check since LP doesn't seem to be being
maintained.
John Hatton
SIL Papua New Guinea, Palaso, & SIL International Software Development
Chat Google Talk: hattonjohn Skype: hattonjohn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lexiconinter...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:lexiconinter...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry
> Hayashi
> Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 7:24 PM
> To: LexiconInterchangeFormat
> Subject: [LIFT] Re: LIFT Change Request for Comment: RFCs 1 & 2
>
> Hi John,
>
> Not sure why but I cannot access either of these files.
>
> In regards to any changes to LIFT 0.13, it would be good if we could
provide an
> XSLT for going from LIFT 0.2x back to 0.13 to allow for some transition
time in
> upgrading code. Or I am assuming that exporting LIFT 0.13 will remain an
> option in FLEX.
>
> Larry
>
> On Jun 29, 4:52 pm, "John Hatton" <john_hat...@sil.org> wrote:
> > Dear LIFT'ers,
> >
> > The Fieldworks Language Explorer <http://fieldworks.sil.org/flex/>
> > and WeSay <http://wesay.org/> development teams request your comments
> > on a group of proposed changes related to LIFT field definitions.
> > These two RFC's are in the form of Google Docs:
> >
> > RFC 1: Improve clarity of LIFT field definition elements and attribute
> > names
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iH1uzQMlSgxeZXbGU1hy7peK8E8-
> BCLaC...
> > Ond0/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=COq9lDI>
> >
> > RFC 2: Expansion of LIFT field definitions
> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hdu-
> X395Al7_Rl946DRrY_eOLCuZwPwM2...
> > 31EM/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CMyRzvEM>
> >
> > These are being submitted concurrently because they refer to each other.
> >
> > If you would like to discuss these proposals, please, could you make
> > sure you are signed into Google and then use its commenting feature
> >
<http://docs.google.com/support/bin/static.py?hl=en&page=guide.cs&guid...
> > 624&from=1224138&rd=1> ? We have found this approach is more
> > conducive to discussing and resolving issues than is email. Note,
> > while you will find that you have permission to edit the document
> > itself, it's probably best if you avoid doing that unless it's just a
typo.
> >
> > My apologies for launching this request during the northern summer,
> > but we would like to set an initial three week target for the end of
> > discussion of this proposal. If there are RFCs in the future which
> > have a more fundamental effect on the actual data, I would expect a
> > longer window to allow for people on holiday or otherwise out of touch.
> >
> > If you are building or maintaining software which has to read/write
> > lift, can you please weigh in? All I know about for sure is Helen &
> > crew at LEGO/RELISH. Even if you just say "we don't care", that'd be
helpful.
> >
> > The developers proposing these changes, can I please ask that you make
> > participating in any discussion a top daily priority? There may be no
> > conversation at all. But if someone does take time to raise issues,
> > let's aim to respond within a day.
> >
> > Thanks everyone.
> >
> > John Hatton
> > <http://pnglanguages.org/> SIL Papua New Guinea,
> > <http://palaso.org/> Palaso, & <http://sil.org/> SIL International
> > Software Development Chat Google Talk: hattonjohn Skype: hattonjohn
Larry Hayashi
at: http://web.unbc.ca/~smalgyax/
I am also using it to generate Flash Cards for a language learning
program for the same group.
Larry