[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 8 September 2015 uploaded
Submitter's message
ActionItem:
1. Tom will begin a wiki page for DITA 1.3 errata
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 8 September 2015
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Regrets: none
Standing Business
=================
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201509/msg00035.html (Harrison, 1 Sep. 2015)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Scott, approved by TC
Subcommittee Reports
none
Announcements
None
Business
========
1. Action items
25 August 2015:
"Why three editions of DITA 1.3?" committee note
Nancy: Convene working group for "Why Three Editions of DITA 1.3" (in progress)
Nancy; in response to mail, I got a response from Amber, but haven't heard from John; will phone him.
2. Calendar for critical dates to enable DITA 1.3 to be released in 2015
Schedule: July - December 2015
3. Who is attending tcworld and DITA Europe?
[We must have TC meetings on November 10 and 17, in order to maintain release 1.3 voting schedule.]
- Kris; who will be at tcworld and DITAEurope?
tcworld; Kris, Eliot, Keith; they will have to get together and call in.
DITAEurope; Kris, Joann, Scott, Robert, Eliot; meeting would start at 5pm Munich time, during conference hours; one possibility is to push meeting later to 5:30 (11:30 ET)
- Nancy; is there a vote on 11/17?
- Kris; we'll need a special majority vote to advance CSD01 to OASIS standard, so we need an actual majority of voting members on the call.
[discussion of voting eligibility; to vote, you have to have been present at 2 out of 3 most recent meetings prior to Chet opening the ballot.]
4. Statements of use:
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA1.3StatementsOfUse
New statement from parson AG
Can TC members reach out to clients for whom they've implemented 1.3 modules?
kris; we can still gets more statements of use, and they'll be listed, so keep looking for more.
Amber; I wrote the text for my client, and asked that they fill in the name and send it in.
Kris; good idea; I'll do the same.
5. New item: Stages of the OASIS process are confusing to many
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201509/msg00039.html (Eberlein, 8 September 2015)
Kris; the issue is that, if you're not part of OASIS and very familiar with their process, it's not clear, from what Chet just posted, what stage of the process we're at.. Chet just posted on linkedin, that DITA 1.3 has been approved and now people can use it. But we know that it hasn't passed all the hurdles to be an actual standard yet. I'm going to respond with an explanation that includes this graphic.
[TC generally liked the graphic, in mail message above]
6. Posts on dita-comment:
Possible problem in DITA 1.3 DTDs
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201509/msg00000.html (Radu Coravu, 2 September 2015)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201509/msg00001.html (Anderson, 2 September 2015)
Very late but just noticed this during research
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201509/msg00003.html (Julio Vazquez, 4 September 2015)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201509/msg00005.html (Anderson, 4 September 2015)
Robert gave an overview;
o first item was from Radu asking about a problem in DTDs. I sent back a reply on how this issue came to be; it may cause a bit of trouble, but it's a legacy thing. It's not technically a bug, just a quirk.
o second item was from Julio; 'ditavalmeta' prose text description is different from actual content model in langref. This is annoying, but the actual grammars are correct, and they, not the langref, are normative. It's certainly not worth redoing the spec over. just fyi, the content model is a bit odd; it shows elements repeating themselves; but grammar files (from which it is derived) are correct; there's probably an unusual thing in rng files causing the discrepancy, but not worth holding up spec over.
- Kris; we can add these things to a wiki page to consider for an errata
- Robert; it'svery minor in scope.
- Tom; I can create that wiki page this week.
- Kris; action item for tom!
[TC agreement to have these kind of items (in this case, just the one reported by Julio, on an errata page]
- Robert; we might want to figure out where in the RNG -> langref transform these are coming from.
ActionItem; Tom will begin a wiki page for errata
7. Discussion re TAB comments on CSPRD 01
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201508/msg00074.html (Eberlein, 8 August 2015)
Comment area 1. Section numbering: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1272
- Kris; we got quite a lot of items from TAB; these don't involve what we're doing for 1.3 spec; but for future, we want to take their comments seriously.
start with section numbering: nancy had a comment
- Nancy; standards often use numbered sections. People who are used to reading standards find it odd that headings that appear to be on the same level (because they are styled the same in the PDF) are not all in the TOC.
- Eliot; you all know my position [that numbered sections are never useful]
- Kris; i'm not a big fan of sections; but we do have sections, especially in language reference.
- Tom; could there be a different rendering of section titles to distinguish them from other headings?
- Robert; that's a good idea.
- Don; what about a 'note:' prefix?
- Robert; the prefix idea is good, but 'note' is bad; the spec says 'notes' are non-normative, and some of the material in sections is normative.
- Don; another body of content that this is similar to is man pages.
- Robert; for langref, yes, not for spec. You could argue that sections in archspec should be numbered. not that many of them, and in any case I don't agree with that argument.
- Kris; one place where I don't see an alternative is 2.1.1 terminology and notation. sometimes we use sections as a way to provide headers.
- Eliot; in XSD-FO spec, they have unnumbered headings like our langref., in XSLT spec, they only go down 3 levels of heading, we go much further.
[general discussion of sections; consensus on making section headings look different, rather than numbering them.]
Comment area 2. Hyperlinks for all element and attribute mentions: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1276
- Kris; gist of these comments was that every mention of a DITA element or @ should be a hyperlink.
- Tom; what does that mean to the size of the PDF?
- Kris; it would balloon both size and processing time
- Robert; for PDF, size would easily double.
- Tom; would our processors handle that markup?
- Kris,Robert; we'd definitely have to change the markup
- Robert; there are differences between links to info in the same topic, and to material outside current topic. Lots of links would have to change
- Kris; we would have to modify markup for all mentions of elements and @s, and particularly, things re different if content is marked up with xmlmention domain elements.
- Eliot; markup is consistent, we'd have to change processing
- Robert; we could do that with elements, but not with @s, some @s are in common places, not named after attributes.
- Eliot; what if you set up a mapping table...
- Robert; I'm not sure of that. The question is, should they be links or not?
- Eliot; in principle, I think every mention of an element should link to its langref entry
- Kris; I'm afraid it would be distracting visually.
- Tom; would the links be blue?
- Kris; they'd have to be shown visually.
- Tom; this seems like shomething that should be rendered only if you mouse over it.
- Robert; I kind of like that, but don't know if it's even 'OASIS legal', and I'm sometimes annoyed by that linking, though when I want that link, it's very helpful.
- Tom; in Acrobat, when you have a link, you get a different pointer. Were they also looking for page refs?
- Kris; they were, but absolutely not, we don't want those. One problem we have is the kind of formatting we use.
- Robert; that's a legacy of issues that no longer exist, where if you retain xml markup, with @-sign, links to a topic lose markup; those were old processing concerns that interfered in markup.
- Kris; can this be fixed when we go to DITA-OT 2.1?
- Eliot, do we have an override?
- Robert; also, some instances are links to 'dlentry' elements; those work differently from links to topics.
- Kris; we weren't able to fix these in 1.3, but hopefully for the future...
- Robert; I think the way we mark up @s in DITA 2.0 will have to change. We may fix some of these issues; processing issues may not matter.
- Kris; should we open an action item to fix the spec plugin in regard to links that include xmlmention elements?
- Eliot; in the ref entry for 'lcAreaCoords2' (pg 569 of all inclusive PDF); under 'Attributes' heading, the link to outputclass doesn't render with @, but the link to @keyref does...
- Kris; but the larger issue is; do we want all mentions of elements / attrs to be linked to the definition??
- Robert; I'm coming down on 'yes', if it doesn't mess with reading the spec.
- Eliot; my preference would be to have xmlmention elements produce links, but not visually.
- Robert; I think it's good for elements but not attributes, maybe in the future.
- Eliot; it's conref'd content; if we fix it in the source, it's fixed; it's a matter of making link text literal rather than generated.
- Robert; there are lots like that one, but they're not all like it; if we're going for 75% that;s OK, but not all; it won't get us to 100%.
[to be continued next week]
8. Continuing item: DITA TC Committee Note: "Why are there three editions of DITA 1.3?"
- Brainstorm of what we want this committee note to contain
[to be done in subsequent meeting of volunteers]
Volunteers: Amber Swope, John Hunt, Nancy Harrison, Tom Magliery
Amber; John and I had volunteered to do all-inclusive, because it's really about the L&T material, but it needs to be set within the larger constext of why there are 3 editions. We need to make clear that concept/task/reference are not part of dita base (and why they're not).
Nancy; who's our audience? end users or implementers? new users or old?
Kris; both old and new users, and both end-user and implementers...
Nancy; so we need some technical info, but not too much...
- Plug-in status:
PDF: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201509/msg00046.html (Eberlein, 8 September 2015)
XHTML: Need volunteer for this work
Bob will look at the XHTML side this week
Kris; the PDF plugin is running on DITA-OT 2.1
12 noon ET Close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 8 September 2015
No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link
Submitter: Ms. Nancy Harrison
Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC
Folder: Meeting Notes
Date submitted: 2015-09-11 11:17:54
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]