dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 6 February 2018 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
- none noted
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 06 February 2018
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Attendance:
Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Richard Hamilton, Nancy Harrison, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois, Dawn Stevens, Bob Thomas, Maria Essig, Joe Pairman, Amber Swope
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Bill Burns, Alan Hauser
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
30 January 2018:
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/62418/minutes20180130.txt (Harrison, 30 January 2018)
moved by Kris, 2nd by Bob, approved by TC
3. Announcements:
New TC members: None
4. Action items
6 September 2016
Kris: Revise subject scheme example topic pulled from errata 01
19 September 2017:
Kris and Robert: Draft response to Radu's blog post and e-mail to dita-comment
09 January 2018:
Chris: E-mail about adding new vocabulary element for inclusion of external XML; confer with Robert and Eliot (IN PROGRESS)
- Chris; some back and forth w/ Eliot on this, still in progress
23 January 2018
Kris: Request 15-day public review for DITA 1.3 Errata 02 (COMPLETED)
30 January 2018
Kris: Stage two proposal for issue #36: Remove deprecated items (COMPLETED)
Scott: Stage two proposal for issue #85: Several glossentry elements should allow sub and sup (COMPLETED)
Alan: Stage two proposal for issue #73: Remove delayed conref domain from DITA 2.0
- [Alan sent regrets, he expects to have this ready soon.]
Anderson: Stage two proposal for issue #46: Remove xtrc and xtrf attributes from list of global attributes (COMPLETED)
Anderson: Stage two proposals for issue #18: Make audience, platform, product, otherprops into specializations
- Robert; still working on this
5. Update from TechComm subcommittee
Bob gave overview; SC met yesterday and decided to suspend activities for awhile, because their discussions would be entirely reduncent with full TC discussions. We didn't feel it was a good use of our time; will keep a kit of resources for separating techcomm specialization from base. We can re-establish regular meetings if we need to. e.g. if there's another 1.3. errata.
- Kris; so TC will be folding in TechComm items as they arise.
6. "LwDITA: An Introduction" committee note
Update?
- Kris; any updates?
- Carlos; we had to stop the publishing process when we discovered some substantive errors in the CN. so in SC meeting yesterday, we went over all the changes we needed to make; we're waiting on Kris for an updated subjectscheme.
- Kris; there's one already in Github.
- Carlos; it would be good if anyone can look at the DTDs; we decided to have processing-role in the map; it's already in, but we have to discuss; we hope to have a new package in next week.
- Nancy; will we need to vote again on that next week?
- Kris; yes; SC's plan is to go out for a 2nd public review, since they had to make substatntive changes
7. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Update?
Schedule
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA-1.3-errata-02-schedule
- Kris; I was finally able to get the request thru to OASIS; there were issues with the OASIS website.
8. DITA 2.0 stages and processes
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00084.html (Anderson, 30 January 2018)
Other changes needed:
Stage two proposal template: Add link to minutes that document stage one discussion
Reviewer to assess completeness of stage two proposal and let chair know to include it on a TC agenda
- Robert; just want to mention a couple of updates; I've been using SVN to store stage 2 and 3 proposals; I put template for stage 2 in SVN last week, (before it was in Kavi), now there's a direct link from the page thru SVN from browser to template. There are a couple of updates to the stage 2 template to make it easier to read; I added new section to backwards compatibility area, then realized that some changes could have impact on specialization modules, so that needed to be addressed. I also updated process doc from front page to be more clear.
- Kris; that sounds complete. I did put 2 items on agenda; 1) a change to stage 2 template to have links to any minutes that bore on the proposal, and 2) currently it's now on chair to review all proposals before they're submitted to TC; we need to add a stage 2 proposal reviewer; it doesn't need to be a tech review, but has to make sure proposal is complete according to the template. Unless there are objections to this, from now on, when we give deadlines on stage 2 proposals, we also need to queue up reviewers.
- Robert; that makes sense; part of me feels pain at every item added to the template, but every one so far is coming out of problems or missed items in the past. I'd love to slim down the process, but I don't know how.
- Kris; ditto on what he said...
- Robert; we have a huge user community, so we have to be very careful about what we do that will impact them; we have to call out anything that will.
- Robert; for stage 3, I was supposed to have proposal for today, but it's missing a critical field - I need 2 content reviewers at this stage. We haven't yet assigned reviewers for any of our stage 3 proposals, so I can't present today because the proposal hasn't been reviewed.
9. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals: Deadlines
Modify bookmap design #29: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/29
- Kris; Eric, when can you have a stage 2 proposal?
- Eric; within a couple a weeks... say Feb 26
- Kris; OK
10. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/projects/2
Process: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA_2.0_Proposal_Process_DRAFT?highlight=%28DITA%29%7C%282.0%29%7C%28stages%29
a. Volunteers for reviewing stage 2 proposals for template conformance:
Dick - 8 Add a new vocabulary element for inclusion of external XML and text markup
Nancy - 13 Split base and technical content
Bob - 16 Add titlealts to maps
Deb - 18 make original profile atts into specializations of props
Robert - 21 resolve inconsistent class att for shortdesc, linktext, and searchtitle
Stan - 33 Deprecate or remove copy-to attribute
Tom - 34 Remove topicset, topicsetref element
Stan - 73 removing delayed conref domain
b. Issue #36: Remove deprecated items
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201802/msg00006.html (Eberlein, 1 February 2018)
Kris gave overview; wrt migration, most removed items could be handled by pre-built XSLT scripts; that certainly works for @alt or @navtitle. But anything that relies on printout will require more complicated migration. so this does have IA hit for users. We'll need a long section about costs, and a list of the grammar files to be edited, but it won't require changes to basic architecture spec. Of course, if vendors built any features around the deprecated markup (and we know that some of them did), they'll have to change their tools.
- Kris; the biggest question is navtitle; do we need a separate migration doc, or can we just include it as part of the rest?
Robert; I thought we already agreed we'll need a migration document.
- Kris; did we decide?
- Chris; I really think we need one
- Robert; we can't break compatibility without a guide, and removing @navtitle will certainly do that.
- Kris; so will it just cover migrating from 1.3 to 2.0? or include older versions?
- Robert; anything in older versions is compatible with 1.3.
- Kris; so a separate migration guide or white paper or CN is necesary.
- Scott; given our proposal template, it should be easy to pull it together...
- Kris; but we're not giving concrete details in the proposals, just giving old and new markup, not how you get from A to B.
- Robert; for my stage 2/3 proposals, I gave instruction on how you might migrate, but not details.
- Chris; given that it's not possible for us to know about all tools, it's not feasible to give all the details for tools.
- Robert; we can certainly provide one path, but we can't cover every path.
- Kris; any comments on 36?
- Robert; some of these will be difficult, but we've been planning this for a long time.
- Kris; do we need to start advertising these now, so people have a long time to prepare?
- Robert; for print @s, it won't be as big a deal as we thought; print @ is almost binary, for me, migration will map to deliverytarget
- Chris; I think navtitle will be biggest issue
- Robert/Nancy; agree
- Kris; and we use @navtitle in almost all our code examples in our spec, so fixing it will be the biggest work item there as well.
- Robert; wrt the original discussion/creation of navtitle element vs. @navtitle; we needed to have either rich text or reusable text; so we decided not to have multiple things. What if we wanted to un-deprecate it, and just call it a shortcut?
- Chris; my thoughts as well.
- Kris; removing it gives me pause also, even as the proposal owner. In the 1.3 spec, we talk about @navtitle.
- Joe P; it should be an element; I think it's OK to nudge people into the element.
- Robert; in defense of authoring community, they don't use the spec; it's more on the tool vendors to make them aware of that, like highlighting deprecated items. As Kris says, a lot of tools still insert it automatically, which is unfortunate but where we are.
- Chris; and I use it myself, because it's so convenient; it wil get considerably more difficult without it.
- Amber; the navtitle element was introduced for localization of navtitle text.
- Kris; but @navtitle has 2 uses; people use @navtitle for convenience to be able to look at written code.
- Robert; there were 2 reasons for making it an element; 1) easier on translation tools 2) ability to use markup within a navtitle, which you can't have in navtitle @.
- Eliot; I feel pretty strongly that having navtitle isn't good, but could be re-defined to be purely for authoring.
- Kris; we moved in that direction in 1.3, that's have we define it now.
- Eliot; there are still issues with it; I was testing rendition of an Arabic document, and in HTML, all the TOC was in English, because it used @navtitle.
- Scott; the problem is keeping the same name but with different meanings.
- Kris; we could replace it with a differently named @, to keep giving map authors that utility.
- Chris; there are title-only topicrefs, which are different
- Kris; and this proposal doesn't address that, we force people into using the navtitle element.
- Chris; but that means 2.0 breaks 80% of all topics I've ever seen.
- Kris; a lot of tools introduce that.
- Scott; what about all L&T elements?
- Kris; this proposal is only for base, since we also have a proposal to separate the TechComm and L&T from base. If there's a 2.0 L&T module, it will have to address that.
- Chris; in this sense, L&T folks are in same position as any outside specialization group; they'll have to read our docs and use them as guidelines to build theirs.
- Kris; I'm hearing some different opinions; some for moving forward as is, some to retain @navtitle but change its meaning, or introduce another @ on topicref for the use people are now giving @navtitle.
- Robert; I don't like the last idea; if part of the problem is that the change hits every doc, changing the @ name will do the same thing, so no better.
- Kris; any more discussion on 36?
c. Issue #46: Remove xtrf and xtrc attributes
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201802/msg00021.html (Anderson, 2 February 2018)
- Robert; this is pretty straightforward; these @s were added as global @s for processors to hold debugging info; they came out of specific tools used in DITA's IBM beta days - those tool restrictions have all gone away. The proposal is to remove them; they should really only exist in specialization modules, so it should be easy to remove them from the base.
- Chris; speaking as a vendor who's used these @s, no uses require them to be in the source files, they can get the info other ways.
- Eliot; I support this.
- Kris; I do also.
- Bob; get rid of them.
- Kris; we'll move this forward; on the agenda next week for vote, then we'll need a stage 3 proposal for this
d. Issue #85: Add ph element to certain glossentry elements
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/62450/Issue85-AddSupSubToGlossElements.html (Hudson, 5 February 2018))
reviewer;
[continued to next week]
11. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/projects/2
Process: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA_2.0_Proposal_Process_DRAFT?highlight=%28DITA%29%7C%282.0%29%7C%28stages%29
Review of proposed dates for stage 3 proposals in progress
- Kris; we need reviewers for proposal 17 (make outputclass a universal @)
Volunteers: Dawn & Scott
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]