dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 29 May 2018 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
ActionItem:
1. Eliot will try to generate DTDs for multimedia domain from Chris's RNG modules with RNG generator.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 29 May 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, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Maria Essig, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Alan Houser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Eric Sirois, Bob Thomas, Jim Tivy
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Keith Schengili-Roberts
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
15 May 2018:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201805/msg00040.html (Harrison, 15 May 2018)
Moved by Kris, 2nded by Maria, 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
08 May 2018:
Kris: Set up call with Carlos and Robert about spec IA and sharing content between DITA 2.0 and LwDITA spec (COMPLETED; scheduled for 21 May at 11 AM ET))
Eric: Consider e-mail on dita-comment from Stefan Eike and report back to TC
15 May 2018
Kris and Bob: Rebuild CHM for Errata 02 (COMPLETED)
Nancy: Schedule call about splitting base and technical content (COMPLETED)
5. Report from STC Summit conference
[attended by Alan, Dick, Tom, and Dawn]
- Alan; STC is odd for DITA; lots of soft skills sessions, but no technical DITA sessions. Part of that is that the STC program team didn't include any DITA folks; all in all, not a lot of DITA to report.
- Tom; I don't remember the program being that DITA-free in the past; DITA was increasing a few years back, but nothing on the program this year. In fact there was very little on structured authoring in general; visitors to my booth were half existing customers, half with vague interest, which is typical of this conference over past few years.
- Kris; main thing I noticed from the program on STC's website was a glossy ad for someone moving from Schema/DITA to Madcap Flare...
- Tom; at the booth, I spoke to a couple of people who were using Madcap flare and were interested in moving to 'real structured authoring' but that's not much of a data point.
6. Learning and training SC: Report (Tentative)
[waiting till Dawn and/or Amber are on call]
7. 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)
Updated package from Bob Thomas:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201803/msg00059.html (Tue, 20 Mar 2018)
NEW Resubmitted to OASIS on 10 May 2018:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201805/msg00017.html
Feedback from OASIS: PDF is great; XHTML has problems.
Eberlein: I've manually fixed the XHTML and recompiled the CHM
- Kris; this should be going out any time now.
8. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
Vote
None
Initial discussion
Issue # 27: Multimedia domain
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/63139/Issue27-stage3-mediaDomain.html
- Chris; the proposal started off as a way to reconcile 1.3 with LwD, but it's now a formal 2.0 proposal. At 2.0, it consists of a new base element (for 1.3, it was a specialization of ???. There haven't been any major changes since last discussion; just turning it into formal spec language. It was reviewed by Bill and Eliot, and I've responded to their feedback (which was all at the typo level).
- Kris; Robert, can we queue this up for vote next week?
- Robert; sure
- Chris; I have a question for Kris and Robert; want to call attention to spec language for fallback; in HTML output fallback topic is blank; what's your guidance there?
- Kris; if there's no appropriate content for a function, it shouldn't be there e.g., if usage is obvious, there shouldn't be a usage section. As Robert and I rework topics, some have lots of usage info that isn't even appropriate.
- Robert; and the same goes for the section on 'processing expectations'; rather than saying 'none', we should just remove the topic.
- Chris; by and large, I've left xrefs in to standard @s, what's the best way to handle 'univ-atts' group?
Robert; as of last Thursday, we have keys for @univ-atts group in 2.0 spec, so if you want, you can start using those. Otherwise, a blank @ with no content. For the proposal, you don't need that; what you've done here is good - i.e., you have link text, just not clickable.
- Alan; this proposal is impressive, in fact a bit scary for the rest of us 2.0 proposal writers; Chris, how do you conref code samples?
- Chris; there are 2 big things in this stage 3 proposal; 1) grammar files and 2) formal spec language. I haven't actually tested this grammar - there may be bugs. The content is correct, but I'm not a RNG expert. I authored the RNG module to be used as new grammar, then just linked to it. Also, there are about 20 lines of code to be used in commonElements.mod; I put those lines right in the proposal. Wrt spec language stuff; I chose to not write any architectural spec topics, though we might want to put some text in translate topic. It's a whole new domain, so there's a bunch of new elements, each of which needs its own topic. Even with such a straightforward proposal, it was a lot of work for the new topics.
- Kris; just for comparison, there was even a lot of work to remove deprecated items from spec and RNG/DTD grammar files, and I didn't touch the XSD. Robert, what do we want to do for DTD equivalents to what Chris did in RNG?
- Robert; I'm not certain. Up to now, we've been making changes to RNG and DTD at same time; we don't have a good tool to regenerate DTDs from RNG. Ideally, it would be nice if, when this gets integrated, we'd have both DTD and RNG. For the purposes of this proposal, I'm not sure. The goal of a proposal is to get everything validated. It's a bit redundant to make folks code both, but we do need both...
- Eliot; the converter should work, but none of us have touched it in years.
- Robert; as I remember, it wouldn't get 100%, though.
- Eliot, that was mostly about XSD constraints. I think we were able to generate DTDs automatically, but in the end, we couldn't prove that. At this stage, we should be able to use the generator to get DTDs; I have a task to address issues with it this week. I can test it with Chris's new module and see how that works.
- Robert; that would be great, if we can use it, it would give us a very clear picture of what's changed, for testing purposes. One thing that held us up in 1.3 was not having DTDs to test till late in the game. The current setup should make that more robust.
***ActionItem; Eliot will try to generate DTDs for multimedia domain from Chris's RNG modules with RNG generator.
[TC will vote on proposal next week]
- - - - - - -
- Kris; comments on anything else?
- Carlos; one thing; in the future, what will happen with the CN that announced multimedia domain for 1.3?
- Kris; we'll need the new DTDs for that. CN has always been just the mechanism for getting something out without going thru whole OASIS process. It can mostly be Chris's proposal, with grammar files.
- Carlos; I'm happy to help once we get the grammar files, so that it can be presented as a white paper
- Chris; I thought I already made those 1.3 grammar files; I'll check and see.
11:28 am ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]