[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Meeting minutes for 27 October 2009
|
DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes ======================================== The DITA Technical Committee met on 27 October 2009 at 08:00am PT for 60 minutes. Chaired by Don Day <dond@us.ibm.com> Minutes recorded by Gershon Joseph <gerjosep@cisco.com> Roll call > Quorum was achieved. Approve minutes from previous business meetings: * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00116.html (20 October 2009, Frankland) > Minutes approved by acclamation. Subcommittee/liaison reports (as needed) * OASIS DITA for Enterprise Business Documents Subcommittee > Michael Bose updated the TC: > Posting today for TC review a white paper proposing abstract versions of the > base DITA topic types. > The idea is to discuss the proposal for possible adoption in future DITA > releases (likely 1.3) ITEM: 1.2 Issue: Glossary Group Topic Type Not Included in ditabase * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200909/msg00238.html (Kimber) * Resume with Eliot present > Eliot: The issue is the glossgroup element type is not included in the > ditabase shell. On email, nobody disagreed that this was an oversight. > DECISION: Add glossary group to the existing ditabase shell. > [Jeff moved. Eliot seconded. No objections.] ITEM: Audience of Arch Spec * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00002.html (Hackos) > JoAnn noted that the spec's audience includes less technical users. Some > parts of the current spec are written more towards this audience than others. > Gershon mentioned that some topics can't easily be made accessible to these > non-technical audiences and suggested the Adoption TC works on text books to > address this gap. > Kris: We can't have the spec be for all audiences. Also, we've now integrated > content from lang and arch spec plus various SCs, and each has its own writing > style. I suggest we handle this in 1.3 to try to hide the fact the spec is > being written by multiple contributors. We would need to do much more editing > than we've done in the past. > Don suggested the audience definition should be a concern for the 1.3 > editorial effort. At most for 1.2 take a look at the "intended audience" > topic. > Jeff: We need to flag, while reviewing, topics that we could write better -- > any topic that's difficult to read in its current state should be questioned > to ask whether that's really necessary and we should address these in the 1.2 > scope. > Dick offered to review these topics and provide feedback about "problematic" > topics. > Need to review the new terminology topic and determine what we want to push > forward into the wider spec, and what we want to remove or write around at > this time. > Kris mentioned there are review comments that contain conflicting ideas about > vocabulary. > Don suggested a meeting of interested folks to work up a proposal to bring > back to the TC. > ACTION: Kris to set up the meeting and drive this forward. > ACTION: Add this item to the review tracking items and close this item. > CLOSED (rolled up into spec review) New ITEM 13 Oct: documentation of conref restrictions * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00050.html (Nevin) > Don suggested passing this on to the editors. > Jeff: The conref inclusion section should include a comprehensive discussion > of this. Doing this is a good idea. > Bruce agrees the content inclusion topic may be a good place to bring all > these issues together. > Don: Someone needs to read all of the topics Bruce mentioned and figure out > how best to move the information into a central location, cleaning up the > other topics as they go along. > ACTION: Bruce and JoAnn to harvest the conref constraints and do the research, > compile what they can and bring it back to the TC. New ITEM 13 Oct: Element-by-element recommendations for translators * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00065.html (Hackos) > Mark this as a comment rather than an issue. > JoAnn asked Robert where in the lang ref this should go. > Move to end of agenda items list next week. *** Meeting Adjourned ***
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]