OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita-techcomm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Minutes from the September 18, 2017 Tech Comm SC meeting.


Bookmap

Éric Sirois talked about his efforts on a 2.0 bookmap feature. The main feature will be adding a specific place in the content model for including maps that primarily contain key definitions.  Éric will review the discussion thread about the need for bookmap enhancements to see whether any other features make sense for 2.0. Some discussion ensued about the need for a more general delivery-map in 2.0. That discussion has been moved to the TC agenda.

Domain specializations

Scott Hudson discussed the outcome of his review of the IBM API specialization. Robert Anderson pointed out that the IBM API specializations were too complex for most applications. Consequently, those models ought not to be incorporated into the programming domain enhancements that Scott is working on. Robert and Kris Eberlein expressed general concern about the potential for an explosion in element names in 2.0 if the domain specializations are included in the standard. We discussed a lesser option which would introduce the domain specializations through committee note rather than as a bonafide addition to the formal Technical Communications vocabulary. The consensus was that this made sense. Kris and Robert also raised the point that it would be better to extend the programming domain through a new separate domain rather than incorporating the new elements into the existing programming domain. The rationale is that many who migrate to 2.0 will not want the new elements. Scott will investigate how this might look. Robert said that the <type> element is a bad idea because there are already too many connotations for “type” in DITA. He also pointed out that the <property> element is already being used. Scott will either rename or remove those elements.


Kris and Robert pointed out that the syntax diagram markup was rarely used and that perhaps it could be factored out of the existing programming domain and put into its own domain.

There was some discussion about doctype shells and what they ought to include. Bob mentioned the possibility of having a set of compatibility shells that would contain a subset of domains that would not add many new inlines.

Separation of Technical Content from the 2.0 DITA Specification

Bob reported that he had produced a prototype document. Feedback on the list from Kris outlined the following next steps:

  1. Restructure the element reference topics to follow the template established for the DITA 2.0 spec. This will highlight material that is inappropriate -- or material that really needs to be addressed in conceptual topics.

  2. Investigate whether any of these topics include normative statements.

  3. Remove unnecessary levels of nesting, most of which are artifacts of generating an all-inclusive edition.

  4. Figure out what exactly needs conceptual topics. I think most of the conceptual (old arch spec) topics about document types are pretty useless.

Kris feels that element reference topic restructuring should be a priority. Many of these topics have not been subjected to close scrutiny since the 1.0/1.1 time frame. There was also some discussion about whether the Technical Content architectural topics are warranted. It is possible that the existing content could be deleted or be moved into a different category.


Substeps

The subcommittee supports the idea of allowing steps to nest rather using substeps. Bob repeated a suggestion from the TC call about creating a DITA 2.0 element domain that implements substep. That specialization would probably be distributed as a committee note rather than formally included in the specification.

Troubleshooting

Bob reported that action on this has been deferred until he completes other higher-priority tasks.


Best regards,
--
Bob Thomas
+1 720 201 8260
Skype: bob.thomas.colorado
Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com) or Skype
Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]