[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007
Grosso, Paul wrote: > With due respect to (and appreciation for) Gershon's > minute taking, there are several points that I believe > may need correcting in last meeting's minutes. Nice to know someone reads the minutes :) ... >> 2. ITEM: Ongoing review of 1.1 drafts >> >> * Architectural Spec: >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00033.html >> >> Don: Some list feedback on Michael's questions. >> >> Michael: Should we deprecate the grouped value >> syntax for conditional property values in otherprops? >> List discussion was in favor of deprecating. >> >> Paul clarifies that this means we'll pull the >> element out in 2.0, not 1.x. > > Actually, we're talking about deprecating just one form of > the value of the otherprops attribute, not an element. > >> Michael moves to deprecate otherprops in favor >> of adding new attributes. > > That was not my understanding. > > I understood that we were just deprecating the grouped > value syntax in otherprops. I did not understand us to > be deprecating the otherprops attribute completely. > > I request that we clarify this decision and correct the > minutes as appropriate. From Michael's email to the list, I thought the same as Paul. However, during the actual meeting, I understood we were discussing removing the otherprops attribute. It may well be my misunderstanding. Please can someone clarify so I can correct the minutes if required. > >> JoAnn seconds. No objections. >> >> DECISION: Deprecate otherprops with documentation >> to recommend adding attributes. >> >> Discussion on whether implementations must support >> deprecated elements. Consensus that they do not >> have to support deprecated elements. > > I don't remember an official vote/decision on this--did I > miss something here? > > I thought we just had a non-normative discussion about what > implementations--in particular, the toolkit--should do about > the deprecated grouped value syntax for otherprops. > > Besides, it makes no sense to have any actual vote/decision > on this unless we plan to put something normative into the > spec about support for deprecated things, and I don't remember > seeing any suggested wording for such. > > Assuming my memory of the status of this discussion is correct, > I request that the minutes be corrected to reflect this. I wrote "consensus", not "DECISION". When there is a vote, I write "DECISION:" followed by a description of the actual formal decision taken by the TC. The "DECISION" is preceded by who moved, and whether there were any objections. OTOH "consensus" is an informal agreement, not a formal TC decision. If you prefer that I use other terms, please send me the terms you'd like me to use with a description of when to use each one. > > >> . . . >> >> * Remaining questions: >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00034.html >> >> Michael proposes to remove the following sentence: >> "The rule may be relaxed in future versions of DITA >> if a mechanism is added for tracking dependencies >> between structural and domain specializations >> in use by a document type." >> DECISION: To be removed. No objections. >> >> Michael proposes to remove the reference to architectural >> forms from the class attribute discussion. >> Some TC members pointed out the comparison may not be >> useful as an explanation of the class attribute. Proposal >> to rewrite to stand on its own to describe the class > attribute. >> Michael: This is only a wording change. If no objections, >> I'll make the change. >> Paul: Why not just remove the sentence making the comparison >> and leave the rest? > > Actually, that's not what I said, and... > >> Michael: yes, that works. > > ...no, that doesn't work (and Michael didn't say that works). > > What I said is that it doesn't just work to remove that sentence > since the following sentence which starts: > > Also, DITA scopes values by module type (for example topic > type, domain type, or map type) instead of document type... > > which will no longer make sense when we remove the previous > sentence. That is what I pointed out, and Michael agreed. > > So... > >> DECISION: Remove the following text: >> "It's something like an architectural forms attribute, >> except that it contains multiple mappings in a single >> attribute, instead of one mapping per attribute." > > ...in fact, what we decided was that Michael would remove > that sentence and then we directed the editor (Michael) to > wordsmith the following sentence appropriately. I'll fix the minutes with this. Maybe I should have my hearing checked... > >> . . . >> >> Don: Has anyone used the 1.1 DTDs yet? >> Gershon: we are integrating DITA 1.1 DTDs into a >> CMS at this time, and expect to have a fully working >> product implementation in about 2 weeks. >> Paul: We have included the 1.1 DTDs in the Arbortext >> Editor that was released recently. > > In fact, we are using/redistributing both the latest DITA 1.1 > DTDs and XSDs in Arbortext 5.3 which we just released 2006 Dec 29. I used DTDs loosely in the minutes. I'll update them with the detailed information you've supplied. > > paul > > As soon as I get clarification from TC members on the list about the otherprops issue we discussed, I'll update the minutes and post the revised version. While I try my best to record the meetings accurately, I do make mistakes and appreciate TC members posting corrections to the list. Gershon.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]