[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: MEETING MINUTES -- 07 DEC 2004 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES -- 07 Dec 2004 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE *** Please see Action Items and Decision Summary at the end *** ** Agenda ** ------------ 1. Roll call 2. Review/approve minutes from 30 November (if available on the list yet) 3. Specification status - http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/10226/dit aspec.pdf - http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/10225/dit aspec.chm - "issues for discussion in specification" (start from "Domains attribute") -- http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00022.html 4. List issues (triage as potential post-1.0): - Bugs reported on current DITA DTDs and Schemas http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00023.html - Should <tm> allow images or logoized content? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00024.html - Should <keyword> be allowed to nest? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00025.html 5. AOB? ** Minutes ** ------------- 1. Roll call -- 11 of 21 => QUORUM 2. Review/approve minutes from 30 November (if available on the list yet) - Minutes approved as discussed. 3. Specification status - http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/10226/dit aspec.pdf - http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/10225/dit aspec.chm - "issues for discussion in specification" (start from "Domains attribute") -- http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00022.html - We went through this list and resolved open issues. - Regarding the "Modularization in CSS" issue -- We need to make sure we are in conformance with the CSS spec. We should test on Mozilla, IE, and Opera. - Additional issues, not included in the list -- - Specialization as a separate spec? - Do we want to spin this off as a separate spec? (so that people can use DITA's specialization features on a different base class) - What is the impact (if any) of someone creating a new base class from which to specialize? - Eliot wants to spin it off -- his clients don't want to use the base topics. It's not enough just to say that specialization can be used independently -- no one will catch that, and will assume you must use DITA as a package. - Paul -- We don't have time to keep spinning things off and incorporate more things. Let's do it later. Let's finish the 1.0 as a baseline and get it out the door. - Don -- What would be the practical impact on the TC? - We'd have to maintain two different specs - How would this affect our decision-making procedures, etc.? - Michael -- Maybe we should have a section on "breaking the architecture" -- adding new base classes, adding metadata attributes, etc. "If you want to break it, here's how to break it." - Nancy Harrison made some good comments but I couldn't catch them! - Seraphim -- Spinning off the specialization seems contradictory to one of our goals, to provide a single DITA standard that can be used as a basis to share information between anyone who uses DITA. Let's look at WHY people see the need to do that -- why the DITA base classes are inadequate -- and address that. - Erik Hixson -- Let's do it a white paper on how to use the specialization technique -- NOT spin it off as a separate spec. This relieves us of the burden of maintaining a separate spec that is not in line with our goals. - Michael and Eliot continued the discussion, Michael making the case that if you use different base classes you can't use most of the content of the DITA architecture and you break compatibility and reuse; and Eliot making the case that sometimes business requirements dictate the use of different base classes. - Michael -- shall we add a topic to the specialization section explaining how to break it? Why would you want to do that? What would be a serious enough difference that would necessitate a new base class, rather than a specilization off existing base classes? - Nancy Harrison -- Eliot can provide guidance on this, since he has a lot of experience with this! - Paul -- All this stuff is great, but we need to get the 1.0 release done! - Don -- Let's see if we can get all this wrapped into the 1.0 spec without splitting it off -- but let's continue the discussion! 4. List issues (triage as potential post-1.0): - No time, not addressed. 5. AOB? ** Summary of Decisions ** -------------------------- - None ** Action Required ** --------------------- 021 JoAnn Hackos, Michael Priestley -- Summarize the discussion of substitution and post to the TC list. Still pending as of 7/20/04. >>>11/30/04: Action: Michael Priestley to add note to conref that people may substitute conref targets at build time 022 Don, Michael -- Put together a "self-study" tutorial/demo, as per JoAnn's comments regarding the DITA sessions. Still pending as of 7/20/04. 040 Don -- Cull the past minutes and discussion list to create an inventory of all the things we need to close on in order to create the 1.0 spec. Create a list of these items and post it in the Documents area of the website. >>> This will be ongoing. 051 055 Don Day, 9/7/04 -- Take the discussion of @scale attribute and related issues to the list (presentation mechanisms). (merge with next...) 061 Don Day, 10/05/04 -- Reply to image align and tm notes in dita-users. >>> Agenda item for 11/9/04. <<<11/30/04: image align issue is a doc mistake, corrected in the "dita132" toolkit version of Language Reference source. 062 Eric Sirois, 10/05/04 -- provide XSLT validation for specialized schemas once developed (Indi recommends Jarno to work with him) 063 All, 11/02/04, 11/09/04 -- Provide comments to Michael Priestley on the draft -- provide comments to Michael ASAP. Michael Priestley to incorporate comments into draft specification; prepare new iteration for 11/16 meeting. >>> 11/30/04 in progress 068 Nancy Harrison to send summary of DocBook table accessibility additions to TC list ** Issues to be Resolved ** --------------------------- 005 All -- What should the scope and length of the conceptual introduction be? >>> We'll get this from JoAnn. >>> Still pending as of 11/9/04. >>> 11/30/04: Closed. 006 All -- Should DITA specialization mechanism be documented in a separate specification in order to make it easier to use in other XML applications that otherwise have no relationship to topic-based writing? >>> Ongoing. >>> 11/30/04: - add to spec issues list 009 "Best Practices" document -- Let's put this on the agenda for future discussion. 010 Relationship between DITA and other topic-based architectures (such as S1000D) -- Need to incorporate this into the "Best Practices" document. 011 All -- Revisit use of @scale on image (general treatment of graphics, ie raster vs vector assumptions, etc.). Compare/contrast with controls for the <object> element, which in HTML subsumes the <img> element. >>> 11/30/04: see Actions 051, 055 above. <END> ___________________________________________________________ Seraphim Larsen ICG Technical Publications Technical Writer Intel Corporation (480) 552-6504 Chandler, AZ The content of this message is my personal opinion only. Although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. ___________________________________________________________
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]