dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 8 August 2017 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 00:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Kris will set up a meeting for multimedia domain working group, meeting won't necessarily be this week, but will be set up.
2. Alan will send his notes on this LwD SC discussion to the TC.
3. Kris will make OASIS admin requests for those 3 repositories, and will suggest that SC chairs / sec'ys are committers to those repositories. Once
4. Kris will start an email discussion on how to review the style sheets
5. Nancy, Tom, and Stan will start reviewing style sheets.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 8 August 2017
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Robert Anderson, Bob Thomas
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/201707/msg00054.html (Nancy Harrison, posted Mon, 31 Jul 2017 05:06:24 -0700 (PDT))
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201708/msg00004.html (Nancy Harrison, posted 1 August 2017)
moved by Kris, 2nd by Alan, approved by TC
3. Announcements:
New TC members: None
New best practices from OASIS TAB about TC meeting minutes
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201708/msg00006.html
4. Action items
6 September 2016
- Kris: Revise subject scheme example topic pulled from errata 01
4 October 2016:
- Tom: Work on aggregated minutes for 2005-2011 (IN PROGRESS)
04 April 2017
- All TC members consider what they want to see on the new DITA.xml.org site for the DITA TC
20 June 2017
- Kris: Convene working group (Eliot, Carlos, Chris, Keith) to create committee note about "Multimedia domain for DITA 1.3" (IN PROGRESS)
25 July 2017
- Kris or Robert: Handle errata item discussed and approved on 25 July 2017
- Stan: Review target audiences thoroughly in next review of the committee note
- Tech comm subcommittee: Consider whether to make proposal to allow steps to nest a stage 1 proposal
- LwDITA subcommittee:
(Committee note) Mention that markup for variable text only supported in DITA-OT-2.5.1 and later
(Committee note) Improve footnote topic
(Plug-in) Change public identifiers, update contact in plugin.xml file, make sample files more robust, remove doc directory unless it contains useful info
[Action items skipped for today, since LwD items are addressed by Carlos in SC report below]
5. Report from LwDITA subcommittee
Carlos; wrt action items; looking at a note in CN on what works in XDITA for dita-ot 2.5.1. What CN needs is a description that explains that 'this is what we're proposing, many are not yet functional', rather than specifics on exactly what is functional where.
Kris; that was my suggestion; when CN goes out for public review, it goes out with DTDs and sample files, and some people will try to use them. You're right that there also need to be wider caveats, particulary for HDITA and MDITA.
Scott; I think putting a note, on what the mimimum level of the DITA-OT toolkit to use, would be helpful.
Nancy; I think we should combine the two.
Kris; in initial drop of CN, we should distinguish between what parts you can use with 2.5.1 and which parts you can't; and we might need some readmes directly in the plugin if it's too complicated to use otherwise...
Carlos; the footnote topic ActionItem has been fixed. including how the 2 footnote elements are mapped in MDITA and HDITA. Also, we've changed public IDs in HDITA and MDITA.
***ActionItem; Kris will provide Carlos info about OASIS aliases for chairs. The plugin should include info about contact info about contact people, and it would be better to use official aliases for that info.
Carlos; with Keith's help, we worked on samples and cleaned up that area of Github directory. We also reacted and implemented TC member comments. Also worked on HDITA to fix issues raised in converting elements to HDITA. In the CN we will say XDITA and HDITA are fully compatible. Also trying to anticipate reactions from general public and from DITA users to CN. Alan is working on a table to map elements in all 3 formats. We think the CN is looking pretty healthy now; waiting for elements to be added to 1.3 to modify language about those element in LwD.
***ActionItem: Kris will set up a meeting for multimedia domain working group, meeting won't necessarily be this week, but will be set up.
Chris; we need to deal with whether we need, in addition to a multimedia domain for 1.3, whether we also need another new domain related to footnotes. There should be a 1.3-compliant domain that included everything, and footnotes isn't in 1.3.
Kris; or alternatively, we nay need to ask LwD to pull footnotes...
Mark; I've been asking for that for 6 months
Kris; I was one of the people asking for them; the DITA way doesn't make sense to a lot of end-users. I won't hold firm on that; Robert didn't like it for regular DITA.
Chris; we had this discussion on the TC call at one point, but if we do keep footnotes for LwD, we'll need to add it to 1.3.
Kris; DITA footnotes usage is confusing for a lot of folks, and it's been an issue. The fact that there are 2 different ways of using footnotes isn't at all intuitive.
Chris; true, there's lots of confusion around it.
Carlos; I don't teach the single use
scott; it's confusing for our authors as well.
Kris; shall we table this for now, and go ahead with scheduling multimedia work? We can have an in-depth discussion on footnotes next week. Please post to the ilst a little more about our clients/customers experiences with footnotes. Is a better footnote solution something we need to consider for 2.0?
Kris; I have a question for LwD SC. What's your progress on DTDs?
Alan; the biggest decision is our recommendation to the SC and TC that the DTDs for LwD XDITA be monolithic, so any modification of the DTD means modifying a single monolithic DTD.
Eliot; I thought it was a productive discussion and came to decision that a monolithic DTD would be best as long as we had defined, off to the side, modular versions of the original LwD of the same document.
Keith; what did you say about
Eliot; we're anticipating 3 levels of users;
1) folks using OOTB LwD, who will never modify anything - that's out primary target audience;
2) users who are already administering full DITA implementations:
3) LwD admin, who might do lightweight configuration, for those users, the momolithic DTD would be good.
But if user 3 isn't really there, then we should abandon monolithic DTDs.
***ActionItem: Alan will send his notes on this LwD SC discussion to the TC.
Kris; Eliot brings up a good point; is that audience analysis accurate?
[continued to next week]
6. Official OASIS GitHub repositories for subcommittees
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201707/msg00055.html (Stevens, 31 July 2017)
TechComm subcommittee?
LwDITA subcommittee?
Kris; these would be official GitHub repositories; we have requests from L&T and techcomm, do we need one for LwD as well? LwD currently only has an open one, but we would need one if we have content actually being released thru the TC.
***Kris moved that we open one for LwD, no objections, approved by TC.
***ActionItem: Kris will make OASIS admin requests for those 3 repositories, and will suggest that SC chairs / sec'ys are committers to those repositories. Once Robert is back on call, we should work out some best practices for all repos, but SCs should also be able to work out what is best for them.
Mark; these repos, can anyone make a pull request?
Kris; if someone actually makes a pull request, they are notified of IPR issues, so it's important for committers to be carefuu about pull requests for non-OASIS members.
7. Specification style sheets
1. Need for volunteers to generate PDF; any errors?
generate output for ??, generate with source packagage
2. Need for volunteer to document how to get plug-ins and generate PDF
3. Need for volunteers to review output and compare to that generated from DITA-OT 1.8.5
Nancy, Tom, and Stan volunteered for items 1 and 3.
Kris; will send mail with suggested sample sets, 1.3 errata01 source. Please compare with official version, you don't need whole package, just errata doc and base edition. also current errata02 material.
Nancy; where is the list of problems in errata01?
Tom; are the errors ones where the spec doesn't conform to OASIS styles?
Kris; no, they weren't reliably generating text from keyrefs
styling,
***ActionItem; Kris will start an email discussion on this
4. What shall we use as sample file sets?
8. E-mail on dita-comment list
Possible improvement for DITA 2.0
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00000.html (Radu Coravu, 18 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00001.html (Anderson, 18 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00003.html (Radu Coravu, 18 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00004.html (Eberlein, 18 July 2017)
[held till Robert is here]
9. LwDITA: Issue of MDITA and HDITA validation
[part of Chris's comments on LwD]
Chris; summary, in original proposal, nothing was said about validation of MDITA and HDITA, but there's nothing in HDITA/XDITA that covers what you can have MDITA or markdown; e.g. MDITA/Markdown has unlimited levels of nested div, and there's no XDITA equivalent for that. The goal is to use existing Markdown tools to feed a LwD toolchain, so the CN must have some language, not necessarily detailed, about validation and use of this. Now it doesn't say anything at all.
Carlos; we're counting on you, Chris, to provide the language; we don't feel we have the expertise to create that language.
Kris; so is this about what guidance we give to people building HDITA and MDITA tooling, to guarantee that it will work with an LwD pipeline?
Chris; this is about 'what is the expected behavior of an LwD toolchain when it encounters content that's valid in Markdown, but not in HDITA/MDITA?'
Keith; In a LwD SC meeting, Michael put it this way:
"If an application claiming support from LwDITA encounters elements not covered by the LwDITA specification, it should throw a message that something non-standard is happening, and then handle as the processor sees fit. It can be ignored or handled gracefully, but ultimately it is up to the processor. "
Chris; I can live with that, but if you leave it up to vendors, everyone will do what they want; it will make it hard to change vendors.
Mark; in Markdown, your Markdown flavor is locked into the processor, what we're doing is no different from that and it's accepted in that world, same with HTML5,
Kris; but so much of DITA is about interoperability, how does this affect our positions on that?
[discussion of state of Markdown as not yet a standard, move of DITA to LwD is a move away from standards and orderly usage.]
Nancy; we're going to have to decide just where we want to position ourselves and define our position.
12 noon ET close
Regrets: Dick Hamilton, Carlos Evia, Chris Nitchie, Robert Anderson
2. Approve minutes from business meeting on 25 July 2017:
o 25 July 2017: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/201707/msg00054.html (Nancy Harrison, posted 30 July 2018)
[due to OASIS email wonkiness, the notification for these didn't go out until some time after they were posted, so folks didn't get a chance to review them; hold for next week]
3. Announcements:
New TC members: None
4. Action items
o 6 September 2016
Kris: Revise subject scheme example topic pulled from errata 01
o 4 October 2016:
Tom: Work on aggregated minutes for 2005-2011 (IN PROGRESS)
o 04 April 2017
All TC members consider what they want to see on the new DITA.xml.org site for the DITA TC
o 20 June 2017
- LwDITA subcommittee
- Kris: Work with Carlos and Chris to determine best way to move forward with issue of MDITA and HDITA validation
- Kris: Convene working group (Eliot, Carlos, Chris, Keith) to create committee note about "Multimedia domain for DITA 1.3" (IN PROGRESS)
[no updates]
o 11 July 2017
- Bob: Complete spec style sheets. Deadline of 25 July 2017. [COMPLETED]
[action items for July 25th need to be added; no new action items from this meeting.]
5. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
o Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02
o Style sheets: Progress?
Bob; I've gotten the new style sheets uploaded to Github.
o New item: none
6. E-mail on dita-comment list
Possible improvement for DITA 2.0
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00000.html (Radu Coravu, 18 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00001.html (Anderson, 18 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00003.html (Radu Coravu, 18 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00004.html (Eberlein, 18 July 2017)
[neither Kris nor Robert on the call; hold till they are.]
7. New possible stage 1 proposal
Let steps element nest
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201707/msg00037.html (Anderson, 20 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201707/msg00043.html (Joe Pairman, 21 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201707/msg00044.html (Jang Graat, 21 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201707/msg00045.html (Anderson, 21 July 2017)
Amber; users are always asking for this; sometimes folks have very complex needs, and they want to reuse a step in more than one task, and it's at steps level in one place, and at substeps level in another, and they can't conref it.
Bob; I'd like to see this come on as a stage one proposal; of course, there would be some problems, in particular, what do we do with substeps?
Tom; is the content model of steps and substeps the same?
Dawn; steps allow some content that's not allowed in substeps.
Tom; how easy / hard would it be to make a transform from substeps to steps?
Amber; substeps is a subset of steps, so it wouldn't be very hard.
Tom; does anyone have any objections to making this a stage 1 proposal?
[no objections]
[will vote on making it stage 1 at subsequent meeting]
Bob; I'll make sure this is on the agenda for the next techcomm SC meeting, this is really within their purview.
Tom; Kris might want to postpone making this a stage 1 proposal until after next techcomm SC meeting; will check with her.
8. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals: Status
18: Make audience, platform, product, otherprops into specializations (Anderson)
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/18
21: Resolve inconsistent class values for shortdesc, linktext, searchtitle (Kimber)
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/21
33: Deprecate or remove copy-to attribute
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/33
34: Remove topicset and topicref
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/34
8: Add a new vocabulary element for inclusion of external XML and text markup (Nitchie)
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/8
16: Add titlealts elements to map (Nitchie)
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/16
29: Modify bookmap design (Sirois)
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/29
13: Split base and technical content (Thomas)
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/13
[no updates]
11:12 am ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]