[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: MEETING MINUTES -- 14 DEC 2004 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES -- 14 Dec 2004 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
*** Please see Action Items and Decision Summary at the end ***
** Agenda **
------------
1. Roll call
2. Review/approve minutes from 07 December
- http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00003.html
3. Specification status
- Proposal for terminology change (structural
specialization):
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00023.html
- Two suggestsions for the DITA 1.0 Specification:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00024.html
4. New: Recommendation for adding explicit sectionheadings to
all DTD/schema files:
- http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00026.html
5. List issues (triage as potential post-1.0):
- Bugs reported on current DITA DTDs and Schemas and Bug
list addition
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00023.html
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00028.html
- Should <tm> allow images or logoized content?
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00024.html
- Should <keyword> be allowed to nest?
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00025.html
6. AOB?
** Minutes **
-------------
1. Roll call
- We have 13 of 20 => QUORUM
- Proposal -- to skip the next couple of weeks and resume
meeting Tuesday, January 4th.
- Accepted by acclamation.
2. Review/approve minutes from 07 December
- http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00003.html
- We reviewed last week's minutes
- Minutes approved by acclamation
3. Specification status
- Vote on whether to break out the specialization mechanism
as a separate specification.
- Proposal -- To keep the specialization mechanism
within the 1.0 spec, and defer discussion on what to
do with it for the 2.0 spec.
- No objections, approved by acclamation.
- Proposal -- To include Eliot's paragraph (Message 7 in
the December archives), explicitly saying that
specialization can be used outside of DITA, to be
reworded by Michael in the specialization section of
the 1.0 spec. We can still have a white paper on this
idea, that explains how to apply specialization to new
architectures.
- Michael will work with Eliot and Erik to clarify
how to word this.
- Accepted by acclamation.
- Proposal for terminology change ("structural
specialization"):
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00023.html
- Eliot isn't happy with it; there can also be semantic
specialization that doesn't modify the structure.
- Michael agrees, but can't think of a better term.
- Discussion ensued...
- In the end, we decided (by acclamation) to allow
Michael to make the proposed change.
- Two suggestions for the DITA 1.0 Specification (from Eric
Hixson):
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00024.html
- Proposal -- to include this information into the
specialization section of the spec.
- No objections, accepted by acclamation.
4. New: Recommendation for adding explicit sectionheadings to
all DTD/schema files:
- http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00026.html
- Proposal -- To follow the convention of annotating
sections in the DTD, MOD, and ENT file; exact naming will
be worked out later.
- No objections, accepted by acclamation.
5. List issues (triage as potential post-1.0):
- Bugs reported on current DITA DTDs and Schemas and Bug
list addition
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00023.html
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00028.html
- Proposal -- Don to make the bug fixes based on
recommendations 1-5 and 8.
- No objections, accepted by acclamation.
- Should <tm> allow images or logoized content?
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00024.html
- NO TIME, NOT COVERED
- Should <keyword> be allowed to nest?
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00025.html
- NO TIME, NOT COVERED
6. AOB?
- NO TIME, NOT COVERED
** Summary of Decisions **
--------------------------
- We had a record number of decisions today! :)
- DECISION -- We will skip meeting on 12/21 and 12/28; next
meeting will be Tuesday, January 4th, 2005.
- DECISION -- To keep the specialization mechanism within the
1.0 spec (not spin it off separately), and defer discussion on
what to do with it for the 2.0 spec.
- DECISION -- To include Eliot's paragraph (Message 7 in the
December archives, explicitly saying that specialization can
be used outside of DITA, to be reworded by Michael) in the
specialization section of the 1.0 spec. We can still have
a white paper on this idea, that explains how to apply
specialization to new architectures.
- DECISION -- To use the term "structural specialization" (cf.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00023.html).
- DECISION -- To include Eric Hixson's suggestions
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00024.html)
in the specialization section of the 1.0 spec.
- DECISION -- To follow the convention of annotating sections in
the DTD, MOD, and ENT file (details at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00026.html);
exact naming will be worked out later.
- DECISION -- Don to make the bug fixes based on recommendations
1-5 and 8 (details at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00023.html
and
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200412/msg00028.html).
** Action Required **
---------------------
021 JoAnn Hackos, Michael Priestley -- Summarize the discussion
of substitution and post to the TC list. Still pending as
of 7/20/04. >>>11/30/04: Action: Michael Priestley to add
note to conref that people may substitute conref targets at
build time
022 Don, Michael -- Put together a "self-study" tutorial/demo,
as per JoAnn's comments regarding the DITA sessions. Still
pending as of 7/20/04.
040 Don -- Cull the past minutes and discussion list to create
an inventory of all the things we need to close on in order
to create the 1.0 spec. Create a list of these items and
post it in the Documents area of the website. >>> This will
be ongoing.
051 055 Don Day, 9/7/04 -- Take the discussion of @scale
attribute and related issues to the list (presentation
mechanisms). (merge with next...)
061 Don Day, 10/05/04 -- Reply to image align and tm notes in
dita-users. >>> Agenda item for 11/9/04. <<<11/30/04:
image align issue is a doc mistake, corrected in the
"dita132" toolkit version of Language Reference source.
062 Eric Sirois, 10/05/04 -- provide XSLT validation for
specialized schemas once developed (Indi recommends Jarno to
work with him)
063 All, 11/02/04, 11/09/04 -- Provide comments to Michael
Priestley on the draft -- provide comments to Michael ASAP.
Michael Priestley to incorporate comments into draft
specification; prepare new iteration for 11/16 meeting. >>>
11/30/04 in progress
068 Nancy Harrison to send summary of DocBook table
accessibility additions to TC list.
** Issues to be Resolved **
---------------------------
005 All -- What should the scope and length of the conceptual
introduction be? >>> We'll get this from JoAnn. >>> Still
pending as of 11/9/04. >>> 11/30/04: Closed.
006 All -- Should DITA specialization mechanism be documented in
a separate specification in order to make it easier to use
in other XML applications that otherwise have no
relationship to topic-based writing? >>> Ongoing. >>>
11/30/04: - add to spec issues list
009 "Best Practices" document -- Let's put this on the agenda
for future discussion.
010 Relationship between DITA and other topic-based
architectures (such as S1000D) -- Need to incorporate this
into the "Best Practices" document.
011 All -- Revisit use of @scale on image (general treatment of
graphics, ie raster vs vector assumptions, etc.).
Compare/contrast with controls for the <object> element,
which in HTML subsumes the <img> element. >>> 11/30/04: see
Actions 051, 055 above.
<END>
___________________________________________________________
Seraphim Larsen ICG Technical Publications
Technical Writer Intel Corporation
(480) 552-6504 Chandler, AZ
The content of this message is my personal opinion only.
Although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make
here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor
am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.
___________________________________________________________
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]