[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 26 June 2007
DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 26 June 2007
Chaired by Don Day
Recorded by Gershon Joseph <gershon@tech-tav.com>
The DITA Technical Committee met on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 at 08:00am PT
for 60 minutes.
1. Roll call
We have quorum.
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200706/msg00047.html (19 June 2007)
Accepted by acclamation. [Don moved; Alan Houser seconded]
3. Business:
ITEM: Dependency sorting for 1.2 Requirements (ongoing)
* http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA_Specification_1.2_Requirements
Don asked the TC to go through the list to get an idea of when unsubmitted
proposals will be ready.
12008 - EH: In process
12010 - EH: Focusing on the previous one [12008] now
12013 - YE: Expect to start working on it in about 3 weeks time
12014 - MP: Proposal in place that's almost complete. Anyone who's interested
in this should contact me to bash it around before I submit to the TC.
12015 - MP: Same comment as #12014.
12016 - AH: Eliot and I have discussed it. We don't have anything yet.
In process. Robert asked to be added as an interested party.
12020 - SD - Researching stage. I just sent out a problem statement for
TC feedback.
12026 - EH - No progress yet
12031 - EH: It's pretty flushed out. Interested in feedback on what's
already there.
12035 - Alan to ask DB for status update
12047 - EH: In process; almost ready to bring to TC.
12018 - RA to send out updated proposal.
12022 - Has dependency on #12050
12050 - PG: In process. I have 2 documents that should be ready to send
out this week. There're a lot of little things there.
12052 - RDA: Almost ready
12055 - RDA: There are a lot of cases to cover. In process.
12024 - CK: DTDs are mature. We need someone to review them to ensure
it's all compliant. Don suggested Robert reviews the SC DTD change requests.
12038 - JH: We had an objection from Kara to the current proposal and
we need to get back to Andrzej and Rodolfo to decide how we want to
react to the objection. We'll revisit at our meeting next week.
12040 - CK: Aligning our topic type with S1000D. This work will take at
least another 2 months.
12056 - SD: Tony has been working on it. Need to move forward with Mary
to make the SC official.
Jen: Eliot is going to set up meetings to discuss the keyref proposal,
so interested parties should contact him.
ITEM: Completed proposals posted this week, for discussion and possible voting
Proposal 12048 - expanded header for reltable (Erik Hennum)
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200706/msg00033.html
Erik described the proposal: The Retable Header indicates commonality
- what kind of topics should be referenced in this column. It guides
the reltable what kind of topic references should go into the table.
Proposal is to extend this capability to allow the <data> element
and topicrefs to be in the colspec, then this info will be
propagated to all topics in the column. Consistent distribution of
relationships across the rows of the reltable. Use cases spell out
where this would be useful. e.g. for reltable to insert directory topic
of sorts that lists all troubleshooting or all message topics, so
all topics get a relationship to the message directory topic.
Second use case is about propagation via <data>. This should be a
simple extension on attribute value propagation.
Third use case is e.g. of specializing the relheader, so a specialized
colspec could provide a taxonomy class classification. Most significant
impact is on processing, since more properties and related links need
to be propagated to the topics in the columns.
Michael: Scoping is similar to using the @type on the <topicref> element.
Should the topic type be reflected in the new proposal? e.g. in concept
column, task column and troubleshooting column, would we use the colspec
to set the type? Suggest adding description of proposed linking behavior
to the proposal.
Don asked if anyone else has a need for the use cases in the proposal.
Michael: With the addition of the use of the topichead to set the
linking type, it will address a few use cases that are currently
circulating (including those raised by Eliot).
Paul: Neither I nor Geoff understand it yet. This is a complex
feature being added to a complex standard. We'd appreciate a chance
to understand it more.
ACTION: Erik to add description on the linking consequences.
TC should review this proposal and revisit it next week with the hope
of getting approval.
Proposal 12017 - consistency between map & topic metadata and abstract vs shortdesc (France Baril)
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200706/msg00048.html
France: Not clear what <shortdesc> is used for in <map>
Michael: We do have some guidelines on <shortdesc> and <abstract>
in the lang spec now. Basically, shortdesc [when used in topic] is
the first para of the content or portion of introductory content.
When in map, it replaces the shortdesc in the topic for the
purposes of the fly-over help or summary content.
France: I'm actually confused about the shortdesc in the map's
metadata (bookmeta in bookmap).
Michael: The spec states that currently this has no defined purpose,
so it's best not to use it.
Dana suggests we add further clarification to the spec. Robert
agrees with this.
JoAnn suggests doing an article (on dita.xml.org) to explain this.
The TC agrees to make these documentation changes to the 1.2 spec
[the proposal was accepted previous meeting].
ITEM: Chris Kravogel on Secondlife training
CK: I request to postpone the training until we get voice meetings in
Secondlife. Also, we're building a SIM inside the Secondlife DITA area.
If anyone is interested, contact Chris via email.
4. Announcements/Opens
None.
--Meeting adjourned at 09:00 PT--
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]