Minutes for DITA TC Meeting, 9 Feb 2010

[Don Day <dond@us.ibm.com>]

(Logging my process so that I can revise as needed. Two forms again, pasted
literal text and then the text file attachment following my sig. Done using
Lotus notes. I copied the Wiki agenda, removed links leaving only essential
skeleton, shrank offsets, used > to indicate my insertions.)


Agenda for 9 February 2010 DITA TC Meeting/Call

Minutes taken by Don Day

8:00-8:05 Roll call
>regrets from Eliot and Robert. Quorum achieved.

Approve minutes from previous business meetings:
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00007.html (2 Feb,
2010 Day)
> Bruce moved, Gershon second, no objections

Subcommittee/liaison reports: Skipped for today

Business:
 1. ITEM: DITA 1.2 specification
 * Spreadsheet and spec source files located in the TC's Subversion
repository
 * Information about contributors, deadlines, editorial guidelines,
Subversion clients, and more
 * Business (edited by Joseph and Eberlein for 9 February TC meeting):
  1. Review of conformance topic: ConformanceReview: Wiki page
> Keep open for next week pursuant to Eliot's return next week

  2. Status update: PDF output of the DITA 1.2 spec
> Users report things are working as documented. Note wiki page open for
formatting issues. We closed this item.

  3. Status of authors' work handling review #3 comments:
> Eliot and Robert (both not here today) provided good updates last week.
Gershon trying to close all comments shortly, will update ratio of
progress. Gershon sees no super critical issues. Kristen looking for
ditamps/metadata to be updated by 15th. Main decisions needed on overlap.
Can Eliot give us projections on completion of specialization section?
> Action: to Gershon to contact Eliot on status.
> New: Jeff suggested that we at least acknowledge the Mime type submission
to add. Don suggests limit it to a best practice recommendation on usage,
and link later on to actual approved suggestions. Use Should to drive
emphasis.
> Action: Don will write this and contribute to Gershon to add to spec
subagenda.

  4. Overlapping/redundant content issue
> All authors were to go through comments and mark redundancies. Only
Gershon and Kristen have done their lists.
> Action: Gershon to contact authors to remind them to update this list.
> Gershon has commented out the collation topic for now--we can resume it
in 1.3

  5. Review prototypes of documentation for the various packages (base,
technical content, and complete).
> Kris has made PDF and CHM versions of base, complete, and technical
content maps.
> Don acknowledged work of Tony, Eliot, Kris, others on making this process
work as well as it does.
> Jeff asked about L&T. Last week we agreed that Complete simply include
L&T since L&T includes all of complete.
> MP is no longer adamant about pure separation--the current groups look
good, and differences are not large enough to justify multiple productions.
JoAnn agrees
> Jeff noted that ToCs are really the same between PDFs and CHMs (Kristen
confirmed). Do we really want to have combined maps for the PDFs?
> Kristen: 1. One set of spec docs rather than 3? 2-separate or combined
arch/lang spec?
> Gershon: favors 1 complete bundle production; favors keeping the 2 specs
together (tends to keep implementors honest to the whole spec!).
> Kristen expressed concern about volume of contains/contained by sections,
which now include L&T. Michael noted that we could designate the base arch
spec as an intro document to the lang spec (still a separate download to
process as a subset). Mentioned ODF modularity as an example. Gershon
suggested we need more brainstorming on that idea.
> Stan advocates one big spec for practicality, but suggested that we
enable the building of smaller subsets. MP points out Jarno's work on a
custom doc shell--could be extended to maps (not a current capability).
Kristen and Gershon agree that the source can be downloaded and then users
can subset as needed. Don was concerned about pulling in content groups
that are not part of a subset group.
> Jeff summarized we'll produce PDF and CHM, using combined maps and allow
users to produce subsets. Kristen amends to say we may not release a CHM,
that OASIS might require HTML instead (otherwise, equivalent for this
review)
> Action: Kristen to double-check on OASIS HTML requirements for specs
> Stan offered to build readmes to help users build custom sets of that
content.
> Kristen are we at consensus to have one specification?  Stan agreed, just
suggested making sure the ToC reflects ease of use (ie, have a single
element quick reference). Discussion about doing this in index vs booklist
vs literal ToC sequence. Kristen notes that Robert would probably say "Nice
for future releases"--MP suggests we capture this for 1.3, though. Make
more use of "see this attribute group" (Hamilton), etc..

Meeting adjourned at this point. Take any concerns about today's discussion
or following items to the list if necessary.

  6. Acknowledgments in DITA 1.2 spec -- what should they contain?

  7. Any other spec items to discuss?

  8. Revise schedule to accommodate the following items:

  9. Heads-up about future changes
	o Guidelines for authors about how to handle review comments
	o Guidelines for reviewers about making effective review comments
(due before 4th review)
	o Changes to master topic list

  10. Low(er) priority items:
	o Volunteer needed to scan Wiki pages for reviews; look for deferred
comments
	o Proposed changes to policies about feature proposals (future)

2. New ITEMs?

Ongoing checks:

8:50-8:55 Announcements/Opens

8:55 Adjourn


Regards,
--
Don Day
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Architect, Lightweight DITA Publishing Solutions
Email: dond@us.ibm.com
11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758
Phone: +1 512-244-2868 (home office)

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
 Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
   --T.S. Eliot

(See attached file: 9Feb2010Minutes.txt)

9Feb2010Minutes.txt