[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 13 March 2018
|
Resending in case anyone missed them. Bill Burns Content Architect | Healthwise bburns@healthwise.org |
www.healthwise.org 208.331.6917 (office) | 208.345.1897 (fax) Healthwise helps people make better health decisions. From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Bill Burns
WARNING! The sender of this message may not be who they appear to be. Please be cautious with the content of this email and avoid clicking links or opening attachments. This message appears to be from a Healthwise employee but was sent
from outside of Healthwise. *** External email: use caution *** Minutes of the Oasis DITA TC Tuesday, March 13, 2018 Recorded by Bill Burns Link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas Attendance: Kris Eberlein, Bill Burns, Robert Anderson, Stan Doherty , Alan Houser, Eliot Kimber, Bob Thomas, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Chris Nitchie, Carsten Brennecke, Scott Hudson, Carlos Evia, Maria Essig
Business ======== 1. Roll Call Regrets: Nancy Harrison, Deb Bissantz 2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting: 27 February 2018:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201803/msg00013.html (Harrison, 05 March 2018) moved by Kris Eberlein, seconded by Scott Hudson, approved by TC 06 March 2018:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201803/msg00023.html (Harrison, 06 March 2018) moved by Kris Eberlein, seconded by Scott Hudson, approved by TC 3. Announcements 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 13 February 2018 Kris and Bob: Fix style sheets to produce OASIS-requested formatting changes (IN PROGRESS) 5. "LwDITA: An Introduction" committee note LwDITA introduction committee note 15-day public review was announced on Feb. 23, 2018. Public review closed March 12, 2018. 6. DITA 1.3 Errata 02 Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02 Update: TC admin provided list of cover page corrections on 06 February 2018 Source changes implemented: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201802/msg00036.html
(Eberlein, 09 Feb 2018) Style sheet changes needed: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201802/msg00040.html
(Eberlein, 13 Feb 2018) Progress? Schedule https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA-1.3-errata-02-schedule 7. DITA 2.0: Split specializations from base https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201803/msg00041.html
(Anderson, 12 March 2018) Robert Anderson asked what form the draft of the split specialization proposal should take as it’s in a different form than most proposals. He asked for official acknowledgment that the plan of record is to deliver the base spec alone.
Do we need to hold a vote or simply acknowledge it? Eliot suggests that we simply move to record it as the consensus that we will produce a base spec. Tech comm. and training specs will be produced later, if at all. Kris moved to formally acknowledge that the TC consensus is to split tech comm and training from the base spec. Eliot seconded. Motion passed. 8. DITA 2.0 Stage Three proposals Issue #17: Make outputclass universal https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201802/msg00105.html
(Anderson, 28 February 2018) Robert? moved to vote on the issue. Stan Dougherty seconded.
Results: ‘yes’: Kris Eberlein, Bill Burns, Robert Anderson, Stan Doherty , Alan Houser, Eliot Kimber, Bob Thomas, Chris Nitchie, Carsten Brennecke, Scott Hudson ‘no’: 0 votes Issue 36: remove deprecated items https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201803/msg00008.html
(Eberlein, 02 March 2018) Kris moved to approve. Eliot seconded. Results: ‘yes’: Kris Eberlein, Bill Burns, Robert Anderson, Stan Doherty , Alan Houser, Eliot Kimber, Bob Thomas, Chris Nitchie, Carsten Brennecke, Scott Hudson ‘no’: 0 votes Issue 46: remove xtrf and xtrc https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201803/msg00016.html
(Anderson, 06 March 2018) Robert moved to approve. Scott Hudson seconded. Results: ‘yes’: Kris Eberlein, Bill Burns, Robert Anderson, Stan Doherty , Alan Houser, Eliot Kimber, Bob Thomas, Chris Nitchie, Carsten Brennecke, Scott Hudson, Carlos Evia, Keith Schengili-Roberts ‘no’: 0 votes 9.0 DITA 2.0 Stage Two Proposals Issue 8: New element for inclusion of content from external files. Chris Nitchie moved to approve. Eliot seconded. DITA 2.0 Stage One proposals Initial Discussion Issue #105: Redesign chunk attribute Robert indicated that the original attribute values were not completely specified, not well designed. Most usages try to either split or merge files. Originally considered three values.
Chris Nitchie suggested just two, and base scope on location in the map. Once merge is “on” in a branch, it’s preserved at that point of the branch. Chris also suggested chunk = TOC. What are the implications for the TOC when chunk=split. Can we get TOC entries without splitting the content?
Robert thinks that should be determined by the processor—no manual control.
Eliot agreed, as he too has had to hack this kind of processing.
Robert: Big problem is that the chunk attributed tried to do a lot of things that aren’t entirely related. Just need to simplify it to chunking only. Any objections to moving to stage 2? Kris and Chris support. No objections. Eliot asks whether chunk is appropriate at all. Robert says it’s incredibly popular, and people are angry that it doesn’t work as expected. For PDF, it’s meaningless.
Only relevant for HTML. We even use it for the spec. One design question from Robert. When setting split, cascading seems to be strange. Should it cascade down the tree? Should there be two keywords? It should be one or the other with no cascading. Robert has another technical design question, but that can wait for a side bar discussion. Eliot and Stan volunteered as stage 2 reviewers. Kris moved to make this a stage 2 proposal. Issue #107: Add new elements <strong> and <em> Keith: No equivalent to <strong> or <em> in HTML. Why? They’ve been in HTML for 25 years. Proposing addition of strong and em. Not deprecating b and I but redefining them as in HTML5. Not in a separate domain. Common request is to constrain out the highlighting domain. Perhaps adding these tags would encourage people NOT to
do this. History: there was a question about whether strong or em as semantic as they are always expressed as bold and italic respectively. No strong argument against. Perhaps addressing the perception is useful. Bob Thomas proposed other uses for strong (color or background). Is this still semantic or just styling? Eliot would prefer it in a separate domain as it would require less constraining. Kris notes the distastefulness of having overlapping elements in the same domain. The spec has already described b and i in terms of how they are typically
applied. Keith: strong and em seems to meet more Kris doesn’t think this defines a semantic need enough. Bob suggests it be part of the tech content domain rather than the base. Opinions are split on this proposal, but in general highlighting is considered to style focused. Some have
a semantic use, but they are not strictly speaking semantic. HTML5 uses a role attribute to indicate how emphasis might be interpreted. Kris moved to make this a stage 2 proposal. Bob and Kris as reviewers. Issue #106: Steps within steps Robert: this had been taken up by the tech comm committee but has not been discussed further. Get rid of substeps and let steps nest. Can’t conref between steps and substeps. There’s zero semantic difference. It’s an arbitrary limitation. Would like to move to stage 2. Bob agreed, and Kris indicated her frustrations. Needless time sink when substeps becomes steps. Only cost is letting steps nest infinitely. People could use schematron to limit nesting.
Chris: Migration costs might be an issue. Will apply to more documents. Robert: All changes will bring some migration costs (i.e., removal of @navtitle). Bob T., Scott H., and Bill B will review. Robert moved to make this a stage 2 proposal. Kris: Reminder that stage 2 proposals will not be on the agenda until reviewers indicate that their reviews are complete. Bill Burns Content Architect | Healthwise bburns@healthwise.org |
www.healthwise.org 208.331.6917 (office) | 208.345.1897 (fax) Healthwise helps people make better health decisions. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]