[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: TC Minutes for 18 May 2010
Minutes for 18 May 2010 DITA TC meeting (taken by Bruce Nevin) 8:00-8:05 PT Roll call (the meeting had quorum) Approve minutes from previous business meeting: * http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/201005/ msg00000.html (11 May 2010 meeting, Day) > Don moved, Seconded by Bruce Nevin, no objections; approved by acclamation. Subcommittee/liaison reports * OASIS DITA Learning Content Subcommittee (John Hunt, IBM) John has chaired since Fall of 2007. Spec, content types, domains. Eager for approval of DITA 1.2 later this year. Very encouraging updates as draft spec etc. have been made available, many from the recent CMS conference. Most vendors support L&T or plan to. Case study by Oberon Technologies, working with The American College (training & courseware), Mandate from Dean, have moved to full adoption, 4500 DITA topics. F2F with SC members and observers. Troy K.'s presentation well received. All review comments taken care of. Don: Everyone must maintain the list of adopters up to date. Action Items: * http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/members/action_items.p hp Those with due or overdue items should close them ASAP. Appropriate acknowledgement of Dana Spradley in the 1.2 Acknowledgements -- carried to items below. BUSINESS: Key links: 1. ITEM: Mary McRae attended to walk us through process and timeline. http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Timeline_for_draft-to-approval_process There is no requirement for a list of implementers for Public Review, though it's nice to have. Have meeting, approve overview document that links to all parts of spec. (We now have all in just one specification document, much simpler.) We approve the spec. One of the editors updates the CS number, note that it passed, put request to Mary to put it in the OASIS location. Zip as attachment is OK. Mary checks the document against the checklist (we should have done this previously). She may return it for fixes. She will then post it for public review with instructions. All comments must be submitted to the comment list. If we receive comments directly, acknowledge with thanks & request to submit properly. We can't create a new revision (new number) during review. We can create new revisions internally, for review and incorporation once the public review is over. Cannot designate them as committee drafts, only as revisions to the existing committee draft. Cannot invite people to see these drafts or our discussions of them. We can say how we intend to address a given comment, but can't put out the revision as such. Track revisions in comment resolution log or in some other suitable way. Can request JIRA issue tracker if we want, or use spreadsheet, or the like. Can use wiki page if we wish. Review period ends at 60 days. As long as even a single comment has come in, can't do anything for seven days. With revisions, may want to go out for additional 15 day review--if substantive changes, must do so. Substantive: would it break an implementation that might have been made conforming to the spec as sent to Public Review. Then prepare new revision, vote to approve as new committee draft. Vote to submit to committee specification ballot. Mary needs comment resolution log (exported to document, uploaded to Kavi). Mary then runs the CS ballot. OASIS approval for our look and feel: Send it to Mary for approval. Would like us to upload it so the transforms are on the templates page. DocBook has a guide for proper usage of their 'template.' Recommendation that we don't defer things. If there are things that need change, change them before we send the review draft out. Or if leaving holes, note them, and know up front that doing so requires a subsequent 15-day review. If big holes, do more than 15 days. If more than an occasional red line, give reviewers time. Reviewers naturally would prefer to review only once, or as few as possible, and be finished. Kris: Things that typically come up to be deferred are refinements that don't affect the content, such as correcting the index, correcting effective markup for consistency, XSLT conformity to OASIS templates. Mary agrees these are low impact and can be deferred without objection. Mary asked how our discussion of packaging was resolved. Kris: as simple as possible, no multiple packages, just as needed for particular communities. Mary very pleased that we're doing a CHM. Michael: why do packages make the review more difficult? Mary: which package makes up the spec? As long as we can say the spec lives here, in this full package, and these other things are subset distribution, that's fine. Don: we'll include instructions on how to build a subset. Mary agrees this is good. Mary: it would be good to formalize the vertical community divisions. XACML and SAML have profiles, for example. Must then update the profiles as well as the spec, but you'd want to do that anyway. Su-Laine: links between topics would be helpful. Can we do this during the public review? Mary: Yes, no impact on substance while increasing usability. Feel free to add the CHM link for public review if we want. Don: we prefer not, because it's difficult for users to provide an address for a comment. Mary: If some bit is left out of the CHM, just detail that. We could provide the CHM for those who want it for usability, with instruction to use the PDF as reference frame for comments. ACTION: Mary to put link to checklist in the wiki page. 2. ITEM: Check on schedule: Kris noted the sad news that Eliot has been called away with somber family responsibilities (his father's death)A number of TC members stepped in to help with his items. * Review comments all completed. Overview document needs review, Kris feels that it needs some revision. TC members should send email to the list about desired changes before next week, so that we all get notifications. TC members need to update the overview file by sending content to the alias for Kris, Gershon, and Robert. Su-Laine: Add relationship table during public review. Kris: How do we get appropriate OASIS URLs for inclusion in these documents. Robert: Last time that involved considerable back-and-forth communication with Mary to get them right. We hope there's a better process now. Robert will help Kris with this. Must be done before public review because it involves the cover pages. Kris advised us that some of the links in the formal TOC presently don't resolve properly in the XHTML output. ACTION: Kris: open new wiki page for short review between now and Friday of this week. ACTION: Robert: Assist Kris and Gerson with updates to the overview file. Don: Next week focus on necessary updates and on fixing outstanding PDF problems. 9:01 PT Don adjourned the meeting
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]