dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 18 September 2018 uploaded
- From: Tom Magliery<tom.magliery@justsystems.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 23:41:43 +0000 (UTC)
Submitter's message
New action items:
Alan: Review the TC list to make sure everyone who's new has access to DITAweb.
Dawn: Send email to the TC for further discussion of title-less topics.
Tom: Update the wiki page with deadline dates for DITA proposals in progress.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 18 September 2018
Recorded by Tom Magliery
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Agenda-18-September-2018
1. Roll call
Robert Anderson, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stanley Doherty, Kristen Eberlein, Maria Essig, Carlos Evia, Richard Hamilton, Alan Houser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Christopher Nitchie, Dawn Stevens, Jim Tivy
Regrets: Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
11 September 2018:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00020.html (Harrison, 13 September 2018)
Motion to approve: Kris
Second: Maria
(no objections, minutes are approved)
3. Announcements:
None
4. Action items
14 August 2018:
Robert: Provide command-line equivalents for SourceTree actions in education session slide deck
21 August 2018
Kris & Robert: Perform the best edit of multimedia topics that they can do in time available; due 18 September
11 September 2018
Kris: Review conversation with Joe Pairman, e-mails about metadata, and TC discussion in late 2017/early 2018; summarize to TC
Kris: Organize call with Carlos, Alan, Bill, and Nancy to cover working with OASIS metadata for committee notes (COMPLETED)
Kris: Start an DITA 1.3 Errata 03 page; list but re format attr on learning maps introduced in DITA 1.3 (COMPLETED)
Eliot: Review spec files and assess whether they need changes in regard to above item (COMPLETED)
All DITA members: Review new LwDITA committe note PDF, and send feedback to list.
Robert: Provide new version of stage 3 proposal for letting steps nest that shows linethroughs (COMPLETED)
Kris: No progress on the August action items. Most of the September action items have been completed.
5. Subcommittee and liaison reports
None
6. LwDITA SC items
New version of "Lightweight DITA: An introduction"
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=63908&wg_abbrev=dita (Posted by Evia, 11 September 2018)
XDITA map broken in our grammar files?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201808/msg00053.html (Eberlein response to Evia, 23 August 2018)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201808/msg00054.html (Evia, 24 August 2018)
Carlos: I got feedback from Stan and Kris. Regarding the XDITA map processing, Jarno asked me to make a release of the DTDs and he will add support in the DITA OT for XDITA.
7. New item: Un-versioned URNs/public IDs with DITA 2.0
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00015.html (Nitchie, 11 September 2018)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00016.html (Kimber, 11 September 2018)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00017.html (Anderson, 11 September 2018)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00018.html (Kimber, 11 September 2018)
Chris: In current releases our public IDs include both versioned and unversioned URNs.
Kris: What do we put in our catalog files for DITA 2.0, and what recommendations do we make to folks about migrating? Do we want to suggest that folks with unversioned public IDs modify those?
Eliot: We do have to have a way to generally distinguish DITA 2 from DITA 1.
Robert: We must have assumed a long time ago that the version-independent public ID has to change. As Kris said, we can't use that for 2.0 and expect tools to figure out which one to use. All we need is an identifier that says the latest 2.x and one that specifically says 2.0 (to distinguish it from 1).
Robert: the 1.x was always a theoretical thing but I've never seen it in use.
Eliot: I agree we should do away with "2.x".
Kris: Are we ready to make a decision? Any objections going forward with the public ID as "... DITA 2 ..." in the DITA 2.0 releases?
(no objections)
8. New item: Confusion re: XML Mention domain
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00021.html (15 September 2018)
Alan: It turns out that the restriction on element names was lifted in the most recent version of the XML spec (fifth edition errata). There was some discussion about making the domain more generic. I also wonder how widely used this domain is outside the DITA TC. What are the general thoughts on how to proceed?
Kris: The reason for this proposal was thinking that we had violated the XML spec. We obviously did our due diligence in 1.3 and forgot about it. And we already have a more generic basis in the markup domain. So I suggest we just remove this proposal from 2.0.
Robert: Alan should get a gold star for noticing this and reminding us.
Kris: Any objections to dropping this proposal?
(no objections)
9. Update from DITA 2.0 spec editors
Schedule:
New DITAweb review of subset of element reference topics to open Monday, 01 October 2018
Elements that exist in both DITA and LwDITA
Kris: This will be the first DITAweb review for DITA 2.0. It'll be a review of all the elements in DITA and LwDITA except multimedia stuff. Alan, will opening a review on Mon 1 Oct be doable?
Alan: Yes.
Kris: We should do a test run beforehand to make sure DITAweb is up and functional.
Alan: Agreed.
Kris: This will be our standard sort of review, we'll have a review copy in something like PDF and folks can make comments in DITAweb.
Kris: Alan Can you take an action item to review the TC list to make sure everyone new is in DITAweb?
ACTION -- Alan: Review the TC list to make sure everyone who's new has access to DITAweb.
10. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
Vote
Allow steps to nest
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00027.html (Anderson, 18 September 2018 -- Updated to show line throughs)
Robert: motion to approve the proposal
Scott: second
Roll-call vote:
Dawn Yes
Kris Yes
Bill Yes
Maria Yes
Robert Yes
Stan Yes
Dick Yes
Alan Yes
Eliot Yes
Tom Yes
Chris Yes
Carsten Yes
Scott Yes
Carlos Yes
Kris: This moves into our queue for updating the spec and grammar files.
11. Continuing discussion: DITA Adoption Would Like to Expand the DITA 1.3 Code Examples
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00011.html (Schengili-Roberts, forwarded by Eberlein, 11 September 2018)
DITA users want more (and better) examples
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00025.html (Eberlein, 18 September 2018)
Kris: I want to help define the problem first -- what do people really want when they say they want more/better examples? It might be multi-faceted. I gave several examples in email and not sure if I hit everything
Stan: There was never anything specific or scientific in those listening sessions. So that research hasn't been done. We don't know anyone's prioritization/what they really want. I agree that we need more information.
Robert: Everything Stan said. Also the one thing not listed here that I've heard is that people want a reference that will prove the correct behaviour of every DITA feature. So there are a lot of things people might mean.
Scott: I've heard that same request, too: "Why don't you guys have a set of reference tests for the DITA OT?" We do have a Denver listening session coming up so I can press this request a little bit more to see if we can get better insight. We have implementors' needs and we also have authors' needs. We need to find a way to better address both of those communities. Getting rid of bats and puffins and garages might help.
Dawn: I agree from the L&T perspective -- just to get people interested in adopting L&T we need a proof-of-concept set of content. So it's the same type of issue.
Alan: This has troubled me for some time, more from seeing vendors trying to sell expensive authoring tools with the garage tasks and examples. The examples that vendors use are almost universally un-representative of any real-world documentation.
Kris: I don't think producing DITA sample sets falls within the purview of the TC but the quality of the examples we do have does fall within the purview.
Robert: The examples we have in the spec should be good examples of the core markup we are demonstrating. But moving very far beyond that isn't ours.
Kris: One thing to point vendors to is the source files for the OT documentation
Robert: Also note that the garage files are still there in the OT documentation but are hidden.
Chris: As a vendor I like to see documentation of edge cases. Jarno asked and I provided my unit test documentation for scoped keys. That kind of thing is valuable but I'm not convinced whether it is (or isn't) part of the DITA TC work.
Eliot: There's a big jump between having sample docs for an edge case and having formal test cases. A formal test case is a software engineering artifact with implications. I did create a github project for dita-test-cases, but it's not very complete. Other industries have users/companies stepping up to sponsor creation of test cases. We don't have that.
Kris: For some background, how do we fund work on the TC, or the DITA OT. I did a presentation in 2016 at DITA OT Day about this.
Kris: One thing we haven't talked about, I think what some people really want are tutorials. That's also not in our purview, but that's what the early white papers from the Adoption TC were intended to do -- keys, conref push, conref range were all structured as tutorials using existing sample sets or providing new ones. We've talked about a Part 0 for the 2.0 spec but that's in the realm of conceptual grounding not tutorial. I also wonder about we added a huge number of examples in the 1.3 spec, so I think people who want more examples maybe don't read the spec, want something less official.
Scott: I think they're looking for best practices, how people should be handling product names for example, in software or mfg or medical. Maybe the Adoption TC could handle this but we want to avoid duplication of effort with the DITA TC.
Chris: WRT tutorials it will be difficult to avoid tutorials that reference specific vendors.
Kris: I'm not sure about that, in some cases it might be true but my clients have asked me to develop more tutorial information, it has often been about things like tables, or images. How do we deal with all these attributes. This doesn't have anything to do with processing.
Kris: I think it would be great for the Adoption TC to do a little more legwork on requirements.
12. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DeadlinesDITA2.0
Kris: Most of these deadlines are past, so let's get updated dates on all of these items.
Eliot: (21 and 34) Let's say Tuesday November 13th
Dawn: (98) Draft is complete but I haven't submitted, need to meet with Amber, maybe I should just run it by the TC. Basically I think this can be done with an attribute instead of the title-less topic.
Eliot: This is a property of the title itself.
Kris: You could send an email to the TC and we can move on to discussion about it, or we can appoint Stage 2 reviewers to work with you. I'm happy to have it come to the TC if you're willing to send an email.
ACTION -- Dawn: Send email to the TC for further discussion of title-less topics.
Eliot (33): Also make this November 13th.
Kris: BTW I am going to move this section higher on the agenda just to keep this moving forward better.
Robert (18): Next Tuesday Sept 25.
Kris: Alan's item (155) is gone!
ACTION -- Tom: Update the wiki page with deadline dates for DITA proposals in progress.
Adjourned at 8:55am PT
-- Mr. Tom Magliery
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]