dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 9 August 2016 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
Action Items:
1. Eliot will update technical content DTDs relating to MathML issue, and mark as errata item
2. Robert will get out an initial draft of the "Why Three Editions? committe note
3. Kris with work with "Upgrading to a new version of DITA" task group to go forward on that.
4. Kris will turn Radu's example of restricted values using a subject scheme map into ann example topic, for addition to the spec, and put it out to the TC for review.
[continued to next week]
5. TC will discuss Interaction between multiple subjectSchemes in a root map on the list, and try to get some use cases for it.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 9 August 2016
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Regrets: n/a
Standing Business
=================
Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00008.html (Nancy Harrison, 2 August 2016)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Don, approved by TC
Subcommittee Reports
none
Business
========
1. Action items
19 July 2016:
Kris: Update errata change listing to include info about grammar files (IN PROGRESS)
Keith: Discuss Google Analytics with OASIS staff (IN PROGRESS)
26 July 2016:
Kris: Communicate with Chet about our need to add informational topic about revision marking to modified DITA 1.3 specification. (COMPLETED)
Keith: Ping Chet about deadline for Google Analytics and DITA 1.3 errata (IN PROGRESS)
[see discussion of errata items under 'errata' items below]
2. Announcements:
New DITA TC members: None
- Kris; we have a new member from Huawei
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)
- Eliot; an external parameter reference in MathML DTD wasn't reflected in the catalog, so it couldn't resolve the reference, it was ignoring the system ID part of the ref.
- Kris; do we just need to change the catalog file?
- Eliot; yes, but I originally had a reason for not using a public ID reference for the MathML DTD itself, which was keep processors from getting the wrong version, since they're shipped with DocBook and some other DTDs as well as DITA. But by not using a public ID, they're getting problems, since the processor misses the module that defines all the module files. In that case, for DTD-based docs, the MathML elements must be prefixed or they won't work. But it shouldn't matter for QNames file, since that should reflect values from a higher-level file.
- Kris; so do we need to have the public ID in the catalog, or not?
- Eliot; yes, we should; if a tool is breaking because of it, then we need to have it.
- Kris; is this just the technical content, or in all-inclusive also?
- Eliot; the technical content catalog becomes part of all-inclusive catalog, so yes, it applies to both.
- Kris; so the resolution is to add the decalration to the technical content catalog, which is imported by the all-inclusive catalog, and to report to the list that we're doing this, and add to errata.
ActionItem: Eliot will update technical content DTDs relating to MathML issue, and mark as errata item.
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
- Kris; behind in updating errata list
Style sheets: Bob Thomas
Build: Nancy Harrison
- Nancy; close to being able to build all, closing issues
Reviews: Joe Storbeck
- Joe; I've gotten a password reset, and was able to get in this morning; how will I hear about when the spec is ready?
- Kris; I'll let you know and give you locations, then you can set up webreview for that.
Google analytics: Keith Schengli-Roberts
- Keith; there's bit of a tale wrt Google analytics; I got response from Chet, to help us get access to the web logs; he wasn't sure if having a 3rd party tool was feasible. We said we only needed it for the docs part of the site, and he said yes, but actually it would make sense for all TCS as well as us. I pointed out the processes for Google analytics, after wihich Kris did those steps and pointed out to chet what needed to be done. Now things are looking good for this project.
Chet gave me raw web logs for the month of July for the entire OASIS site, I haven't yet analyzed them. The breakdown of analysis, over the course of the month is:
-- DITA received just over 1 million hits; not necessarily all web page (many of them go to technical files like .dtd, .mod, etc.)
-- 72% of accessed content was DITA 1.1-related, 22% is 1.2, 7% 1.0, 3% 1.3.
-- For just web pages and PDF files 74% is 1.2-based, 26% 1.2 pages,
-- total hits was just over 110,00 hits in July.
I think that once we get to google-analytics-based tracking, data will show us more about people's paths in looking at information. One of the most popular downlocas is the single technical content PDF file for 1.3. I'm hoping that in the future, each month will have more info about how people are looking at docs.
- Kris; any questions?
- Robert; thanks for this; I'm interested in why people are looking at DTDs
- Tom; I would like to see the data.
- Keith; I'll send it out.
- Don; users hits on .ent and .mod files concerns me; I'm wondering if users are linking directly to system IDs at OASIS rather than using system IDs from local catalog files.
- Robert; It's generally not people, but apps, using those, that's why there are so many hits.
- Keith; that makes a lot of sense.
- Robert; it's inefficient for programs to do that.
- Don; It's not necessarily our problem, but OASIS may want to be aware of it.
- Robert; it's not our issue, but we do make it worse by having the .mod files that are unpacked/unzipped on site.
- Kris; just to go back to google analytics; for errata, does OASIS want to enable google analytics for their spec pages? I doubt anyone at OASIS will make a decision in time for errata, so we need to do it ourselves for that.
- Keith, there's nothing wrong with doing this piecemeal and having it attached to errata when it comes out. I don't know if the code could be added to just our stuff or if it needs to go on everything.
- Kris; well, we build the content for all our stuff and provide it to OASIS,
- Nancy; as do all the TCs...
- Keith; so it makes sense to do it just for us.
- Kris; so we should do this for 1.3 errata; if OASIS wants to do it across the site, they could do so. For now, we just need to tweak our build to add an appropriate [Java] script to HTML output.
any comments?
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)
Google Analytics
- Kris; we need to tighten up the deadline; dates have changes, need to get in build work and we also have DITA review to do, so need to tighten the schedule, I'll consult with Bob, Nancy, Eliot, Joe and provide list with update
[Kris discussed issues with Bob, Nancy after TC call, then spoke with Joe]
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; Chet has given us a template for this; I can go thru and update URI refs for this.
ActionItem: Robert will get out an initial draft of the "Why Three Editions? committe note
ActionItem: Kris with work with "Upgrading to a new version of DITA" task group to go forward on that.
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; my last mail suggests a resolution to be provided to Radu, I made 2 points:
1. for bound enumerated values in the example, the category value is NOT included in the list of permitted values; it just serves as the reference to the children values. We repeatedly explicitly state this in examples.
2. Key references to controlled values are resolved to key definitions "using the same precedence rules as apply to any other key."
I think processors need to resolve key references to float less to include 'none', float, float left. so 1) Eliot and Chris, do you agree with this, and 2) do we need to add this to 1.3 errata?
- Eliot; believe that we're in agreement; subject ref'd doesn't become a vlue,
- Kris; subjectref value that's ref'd by keyref is resolved the way a conref would be resolved. Outermost value does not become a valid enumeration, just inner values
Chris; what is enumerationdef is only value allowed in outputcllllllass 'left'?
- Kris; in normative places we say that the outermost one doesn't become an applicable value.
- Chris; so a dubjectdef keyref with an enum. values behaes differently from one without such a thing..
- Kris; we have said that; the ways keys function with an enu. def functions differently from in other places. which brings us to our other SS item for today. But are we in agreement with our answer to RAdu's question? We could hold it for one more week, but we want to resolve this
- Chris; keyref on a toplefel subject ref behaves differently from keyref on a nested subjectref. It works like a conrefpush.
- Kris; I think you're right, chris, but what happens within an enumerationdef (ED) element
and how subjectref applies int hat instance
- Chris 3 ways for keyref o n subjectdef
1) keyref on subjectdef inside another subjectdef; behaves like conref; pulls values in location
2) ... inside of an enumerationdef; binds values of subjectdef to given value
- Kris; valid values for attribute Don't include the outermost subjectdef
3) toplevel subjectdef, ie directly beneath subjectscheme; bhaves like a conrefpush after; inserts its values, not itself; not an insertion in place, only an insertion of its values. (3rd looks like it operates like a conrefpush rather than a conrefpull.)
- Kris; do we need an example for spec that would walk people thru an example like Radu's
- Dawn; examples never hurt.
ActionItem: Kris will turn Radu's example of restricted values using a subject scheme map into ann example topic, for addition to the spec, and put it out to the TC for review.
[continued to next week]
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 gave overview; Leigh White's email brings up stuff we don't address adequately in the spec.
1. how do processors handle multiple subjectscheme (SS) maps, and multiple SS maps referenced from within a keyscope? Her initial email asks 'what should happen?' and 'what values are actually available as attributes?' Her first example is a root map with child maps and references to an SS, by mapref or topicref elements. Given her example, is the first enumeration the only valid one for @audience, based on our rules for precedence and resolution? Assume no use of schemref to extend up or down.
- Robert; I understand her question, but don't offhand know the answer.
- Chris; how do we say to reference a SS?
- Kris; we gave language in spec on how to do so.
- Eliot; she gives two possible instances; the other case is with 2 SS, both defining enumeration for same @, but don't have keyscope.
- Kris; we do have examples for extending by using the schemmeref element.
- Eliot; I'd think normal key referencing semanticsa apply, then any special semantics we've defined would apply, which means that the first one takes precedence, as she notes.
- Robert; I think that's right. what if you only have one SS, but in different parts you define @audience twice. If you want to combine or extend, use the mechanism provided by keyscopes.
- Kris; before going into keyscopes, let's just work with schemeref; that handles her first example, and maybe the second. I'm more at a loss trying to explain SS in terms of keyscopes.
[TC will discuss on list during week, and try to get use cases, ]
ActionItem: TC will discuss Interaction between multiple subjectSchemes in a root map on the list, and try to get some use cases for it.
12 noon ET Close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]