Submitter's message
ActionItem;
Keith will send a link to the announcement page for the DITA listening sessions
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 2 August 2016
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Regrets: Deb Bissantz, Chris Nitchie, Eliot Kimber, Eric Sirois
Standing Business
=================
Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201607/msg00099.html (Tom Magliery, 26 July 2016)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Nancy, approved by TC
Subcommittee Reports
none
Business
========
1. Action items
19 July 2016:
Kris: Update errata change listing to include info about grammar files
Keith: Discuss Google Analytics with OASIS staff (IN PROGRESS)
Chris: Add keys and subjectScheme to DITA 2.0 list (COMPLETED)
Chris: Add include proposal to DITA 2.0 list (COMPLETED)
Don: Write up transclusion use case
- Don; just posted write-up to the list for review
Kris, Bob, Chris: Discuss thread on dita-comment
- Kris; there have been some posts, I haven't yet talked to Chet about adding items
26 July 2016:
Kris: Communicate with Chet about our need to add informational topic about revision marking to modified DITA 1.3 specification.
Keith: Ping Chet about deadline for Google Analytics and DITA 1.3 errata
completed? not?
Kris: Review both archSpec and LangRef about subjectScheme (COMPLETED)
2. Announcements:
New DITA TC members: None
Note; official TC ComTech rep is now Dawn, rather than Joann (and Kathy will no longer be participating as a voting member); Joann will stay on Adoption TC for a little while longer, but will move off of that as well.
3. New item: Issue with MATHML DTDs
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201607/msg00104.html (Eberlein, forwarding for Leigh White, 29 July 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00002.html (Kimber, 2 August 2016)
- Kris; Leigh discovered an issue with MathML DTDs; if a file is referenced but not declared in a catalog, it causes validation errors for customers using MathML. Eliot; says that while it's an error, he doesnt see why it should cause a validation failure.
Comments?
- Scott; the files are there, even if they're not declared; I don't see why it should be a problem, though.
- Kris; can someone take this on to look at XSDs and RNG? Robt, could you handle it, or should we hold it till Eliot and EricS are present
- Robert; on dita-users list, someone was asking about adding them to catalog, and Eliot had a valid reason for not doing so. Also, is there an issue with RNG and XSD file? - we need to look at it.
[hold till Eliot and Eric are present]
4. Continuing item: DITA 1.3 errata
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA%201.3%20Errata
DITA-1.3-errata-schedule
Team members:
Editors: Robert Anderson and Kris Eberlein
Style sheets: Bob Thomas
Build: Nancy Harrison
- Nancy; I've been working on this, will be continuing this week
Reviews: Joe Storbeck
SEO and Google analytics: Keith Schengli-Roberts
Work items:
Set up @rev for errata (Completed)
Work errata items related to source (Completed except new example for machineryTask constraint)
Change list (Complete except for listing for grammar files & conditional processing for editions)
Catalog files (Completed)
Correct content model topics (Completed)
Test content model topics (Completed)
Style sheets (Completed)
Build process (Completed)
Search engine optimization & Google Analytics
Kris; we're a bit behind on this, we need to catch up. Our schedule had a DITAWeb review next week, Jow, can you test whether you have the ability to open up and start a web review?
- Bob; right now, revision markings are same in PDF as for HTML; I tried to do change bars, but when it did, it ruined the HTML markup.
- Kris; it would be better to have the same revision markup in all formats
- Bob; and I like the HTML revision markup better than the PDF change bars anyway...
- Kris; we'll have to tweak it for insertions/deletions, but thanks.
5. Continuing item: Work on committee notes
Update to "Why Three Editions"
"Upgrading to a new version of DITA" (was "Upgrading to DITA 1.3")
"DITA the standard versus DITA Open Toolkit"
- Kris; any updates? [none]
6. Continued item: dita-comment
Gathering restricted values using a subject scheme map
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201607/msg00000.html (Radu Coravu, 18 July 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201607/msg00001.html (Eberlein, 18 July 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201607/msg00002.html (Radu Coravu, 19 July 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201607/msg00003.html (Radu Coravu, 20 July 2016)
New: Implication of subjectdef with a keyref
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201607/msg00097.html (Kimber, 26 July 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201607/msg00098.html (Tivy, 26 July 2016)
New: Radu's question and analysis of subjectScheme content in DITA 1.3 spec
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00004.html (Eberlein, 2 August 2016)
- Kris; neiher Eliot nor Chris are present; we should hold till they are. Eliot, Chris, and I are all in agreement on how to answer Radu's question. JimT, are you in alignment also?
- Jim; yes, if you let behavior take its interpretation from section 2.2.3.2 in the 1.3 spec. If we recommend that that be the 1.3 clarification, then we can look at all the other behavior after 1.3.
- Kris; let's hold until next week, since some key players aren't here.
7. Continued item: Interaction between multiple subjectSchemes in a root map
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201607/msg00017.html (Eberlein, 11 July 2016)
[Kris; from Leigh White's mail. how should processor handle multiple subjectscheme maps referenced by a root map or it's children? or within a keyscope? Can we discuss?
[hold till Eliot and Chris are back next week]
8. Continuing item: DITA 2.0 discussion
a. DITA 2.0: Chunking
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201606/msg00035.html (Anderson, 21 June 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201606/msg00043.html (Pairman, 22 June 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201606/msg00051.html (Nitchie, 25 June 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201607/msg00010.html (Anderson, 5 July 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201606/msg00052.html (Nitchie, 25 June 2016)
- Robert; chunking makes me shudder; the toolkit has trouble with it; I cleaned it up as much as I could. The main issue is that it attempts to do a lot of things with one attribute; many are not related to what people think of when they think of 'chunk' ability;;
i.e., to take one topic and vreak it down, or take a bunch and collect them. . It's used for a bunch of overlapping ideas that were never really fleshed out. Crowning issue is that none of the tokens are intuitive. My proposal for 2.0 is to use the chunking
@ for 2 basic features mentioned above, and get rid of other functions. If we need to retain the other features, we should move them to another attribute. I also propose we use simple intuitive values, maybe 'merge' and 'split.'
- Kris; I agree. Was chunking in its present form present in 1.0, or did it get added in 1.1?
Robert; DITA 1.0 defined the @, the values were added in 1.1. I tried to clean up the language about the tokens in 1.3, but didn't do much; in 1.1 the tokens were mostly defined by examples, mostly edge cases, and we didn't really explain them until 1.2.
- Kris; questions for Robert? [none]
- Robert; most responses to my proposal came in first week, and most were positive about switching; some people can think of uses for other values, but it's not clear whether they're actually needs, or just thoughts. Chris worries about having it CDATA. But
we had the same issue with @cascade; that was a case where we needed it for a particular use, and people kept coming up with other things we 'might' want to do with the @. I like leaving it open in case someone wants to use it for something, but in gen'l I
don't like adding @ values for what someone 'might' want to do.
- JimT; could we add a subjectscheme?
- Don; there's a use case where someone's using a subjectscheme to manage values.
- Robert; it wouoldn't matter; the spec would define the 2 values and leave it at that, and others could create a subjectscheme to provide other values. The spec itself wouldn't define a subjectscheme for it.
b. DITA 2.0: New include element for base vocabulary
- Nancy; I think it would be great to make this @ more clear with better values.
- Kris; I agree; this is a great thing for 2.0; I think that the DITA OT is one of the few processors that does anyting with chunking.
- Robert; Does anyone on call right now currently use the other tokens?
[no one on the TC appears to use them]
- Robert; one benefit of re-architecting the chunking @ this way is that processors could keep both, so current content would stay valid, because it's a CDATA value, so documents wouldn't have to be migrated to new values to work.
- Kris; we also need to discuss 'how do we start communicating to larger DITA community what the TC is considering for 2.0?' We have a several-year runway to 2.0, but given that we know that we'll be seriously changing some things, e.g., chunking, do we want
to give users a heads-up?
- Robert; I don't like the idea of telling folks 'we're removing something, but we don't yet know how or when.' That will make users anxious.
- Tom; but we do want to raise awareness that it's on the block, and spur folks who are using it to speak up
- Keith; we could say 'we're currintly investigating re-architecting features X, Y, so what do you think?'
- Robert; we just don't want to say 'don't use it'.
- Tom; what if we had a page with a list of 2.0 proposed changes, and a note to say they should let us know if they're interested.
- Robert; I think that's a good approach, especially if it's focused on changes rather than deep tech stuff.
- Kris; I'd like a place to communicate this to public. Our wiki pages are too technical. We need to have part of the new dita.xml.org be a place for communicating from TC to public.
- Keith; dita.cml.org is going slowly, due to the success of the firm that's offered to host it.
- Kris; we can use the old dita.xml.org site to do it as well
keith;
- Kris; the issue is 'How does the TC create better communication with the larger DITA community?'
ActionItem; Keith will send a link to the announcement page for the DITA listening sessions
9. New item: Confusion in enumerationdef topic
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00001.html (Eberlein, 2 August 2016)
[hold for larger discussion around subjectschemes]
10. New item: related links from archSpec to langRef (and vice versa)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00003.html (Eberlein, 2 August 2016)
[hold for larger discussion around subjectschemes]
Other item: Joann's retirement
- Kris; how should the TC formally express our gratitude to Joann for her work?
11:50 PM ET Close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
