|Event Title: Meeting
- OASIS DITA Learning and Training sub-committee|
Date: Thursday, 05 April 2012, 11:00am
- 12:00pm ET
US Toll Free 888-426-6840, participant code 8581755
Germany toll-free 0800-000-1018; Israel toll-free 1-809-417-783.
Contact John Hunt if you need additional numbers.
This meeting counts towards voter eligibility.
Guests - Robert Anderson
and Eric Sirois, to review technical implementation of the specialization
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000149 EndHTML:0000003853 StartFragment:0000000199
EndFragment:0000003819 StartSelection:0000000199 EndSelection:0000003819
DITA Learning 5 APR 2012 Minutes
John provided a brief summary of the proposals for Eric and Robert.
Essentially will be adding 26 new elements to the standard with this proposal.
Robert: may be worth re-defining the original specification to be specialized
off of div rather than fig. This may only be an impact to fallback processing
and tools with existing rendering that maps to the full class hierarchy
values, rather than the single specialized class. May also be an impact
if the original document embeds these values as well (not recommended anyways).
Need to specifically call out this as a change/new feature in the specification.
Need to have the DTDs modified to call the appropriate modules/domains
for the new div basis.
Default processing should still work, but any custom processing may have
to be reworked by the implementors.
John: may have an issue with existing title. lcInteractionLabel is proposed
to replace it.
Robert: that would be a problem. Might want to bring this issue up to the
TC to see if there are any other ideas/options. Not sure the TC will be
thrilled to add 26 new/duplicated elements, but can’t break backwards
Perhaps would be better to adjust naming so it’s not just adding number2,
but have something like div. Wouldn’t need to duplicate any elements where
the locations are the same (If they were based on p, for example).
As far as kosher-ness of Eliot’s proposal, Robert would still like to
discuss further with Eliot.
May be able to put a “temporary bridge” out on sourceforge (similar to
way that Publishers was done), where the specialization is made available
and would require people to migrate title to lcInteractionLabel.
It might work better to have this delivered as a separate spec (isolated)
from the main spec, then it could break backwards compatibility.
Hal: the more we get into it, we are finding that the existing spec is
lacking quite a bit. We ran into issues with styling b/c of fallback processing
of fig. Because there are some known differences in the way it’s been
implemented (not everything works in Moodle), would it be bad to break
the backwards compatibility?
Robert: if we can split this off, we wouldn’t need to call it Learning
and Training 1.3, but could call it 2.0 to really mark this as a separate
Amber: how would we differentiate the needs for the different use cases?
Do we come up with something different the way Task was redefined by Machine
Hunt: we need to be positioned with a flexible enough model to allow future
specializations by specific companies (using this standard as the base,
but giving them the starting point to do their own specializations). Still
want to attain the “Starter Kit” approach.
Scott: what about Simplified DITA? Do we need to make our proposal compatible?
Robert: Simplified is a separate, highly constrained DTD, so will not need
to make compatible. This proposal would be targeted for compatibility with
ACTION: John to communicate to Don and Kristen about how we should approach
this specialization and what to do about the title situation.
Owner: John Hunt
Group: DITA Learning and Training Content Specialization SC
Sharing: This event is shared with the OASIS Open (General Membership),
General Public, and OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA)
TC groups. Public