LIFT Change Request for Comment: RFCs 1 & 2

[John Hatton]

Dear LIFT’ers,

 

The Fieldworks Language Explorer and WeSay 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

 

RFC 2: Expansion of LIFT field definitions

 

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?  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
SIL Papua New Guinea, Palaso, & SIL International Software Development
Chat Google Talk: hattonjohn Skype: hattonjohn

 

[Larry Hayashi]

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

[Martin Hosken]

Dear John,

> 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&guide=1208
> 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.

Certainly, if you give us write access to the document so that we can insert comments or add to the discussion.

GB,
Martin

[John Hatton]

> Certainly, if you give us write access to the document so that we can
insert
> comments or add to the discussion.

My apologies. This setting was incorrect on one of the documents, and I've
fixed it.

John Hatton
SIL PNG, Palaso, & SIL International Software Development
Google Talk chat: hattonjohn