[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 31 October 2006
> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Sirois [mailto:esirois@ca.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:39 AM > To: Don Day > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org; Grosso, Paul > Subject: RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: > 31 October 2006 > > Hello, > > Yas was seeking some clarification on the use of the class > attribute in a foreign element specialization. The > specialization method that we recommend folks using for DITA > 1.1 for incorporating foreign vocabularies is to have a > wrapper element to incorporates the namespaced foreign content. > > Since the wrapper element is a specialization of <foreign> or > <unknown>, therefore a DITA element, it must a have a class > attribute ( <!ATTLIST svg class CDATA "+ topic/foreign > svg-d/svg " > ). > The elements defined within the foreign > vocabulary are non-DITA elements, so, there is no requirement > to have a class attribute for each of the elements. > Including the previous statement into the foreign specialization topic would be sufficient to clear up the whole issue. Given that there's no longer a reason to include a class attribute, the whole issue around having qualified names in the class attribute is moot; I would agree that there's no longer a need to update the specialization samples. > Hopefully, adding a statement or paragraph in the foreign > content specialization topic explaining which elements > require a class attribute and those that do not is sufficient > for everyone. As for updating the specialization samples in > the spec, I don't that is required. If someone disagrees, we > can discuss what info should be in the sample (adding some of > the normalized class attributes in the sample??) > > Kind regards, > Eric > Eric A. Sirois > Staff Software Developer > DB2 Universal Database - Information Development DITA > Migration and Tools Development IBM Canada Ltd. - Toronto Software Lab > Email: esirois@ca.ibm.com > Blue Pages (Internal) > > "Transparency and accessibility requirements dictate that > public information and government transactions avoid > depending on technologies that imply or impose a specific > product or platform on businesses or citizens" - EU on > XML-based office document formats. > > > > > Don Day > > <dond@us.ibm.com> > > > To > 11/07/2006 01:29 "Grosso, Paul" > <pgrosso@ptc.com> > PM > cc > > dita@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject > RE: [dita] DITA > Technical Committee > Meeting Minutes: 31 > October 2006 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate the suggestions about the IP selection process, > Paul. Let's try the approach you suggest. And it need not > even be right away--we are just getting OASIS nag notices to > have our election done by April--plenty of time. > > I'll summarize all the fleshed-out amendments to go with the > minutes when we review them next meeting. > > For the action on the foreign element discussion, I propose > this amendment: > > ACTION: Eric Sirois to provide an updated example and brief > discussion on using the class attribute with foreign > attributes; to be incorporated as an example into the spec > topic for the <foreign> element. > > Regards, > -- > Don Day > Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee > IBM Lead DITA Architect > Email: dond@us.ibm.com > 11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758 > Phone: +1 512-838-8550 > T/L: 678-8550 > > "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? > Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" > --T.S. Eliot > > > > "Grosso, Paul" > <pgrosso@ptc.com> > > To > 11/06/2006 06:24 <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> > PM > cc > > > Subject > RE: [dita] DITA > Technical Committee > Meeting Minutes: 31 > October 2006 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. ITEM: Use of standardized prefixes when > incorporating foreign > vocabularies > > * > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200610/msg00021.html > > > > Yas: This feature is required for at least one editor. > > > > Eric clarifies: The element after the slash (e.g. > class="topic/p") > > should have a namespace prefixed to the p element in the > class > > attribute. > > > > General consensus: Handling of namespace > attributes in DITA > requires > > some thought, and is already logged to be discussed in the > future. > > > > Yas asked for example of how to correctly incorporate > foreign > > vocabulary on the list that we can then discuss > on the list. > > > > Don summarizes: It's a documentation issues and > we just need > to > > define an example of how to handle the class > attribute with > foreign > > attributes. Therefore it's a non-issue for the TC. > > What is the action item here? > > If it's an issue at all, I'm unclear on how it is a non-issue > for the TC. It might not be something we need to address in > the 1.1 spec, but if it's an issue, the TC needs to address > it, and there needs to be an action item. > > > > > 4. ITEM: Versioning of DITA public identifiers > > * > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200610/msg00025.html > > > > Paul G: Version and non-version specific versions of DTDs, > with > > catalog used to locate the correct DTD. > > > > Robert: TC needs to declare the public IDs to be used. > > > DECISION: Robert moves to change DITA version > attribute from > text to > > data and to define version-specific IDs in the catalog. > Scott > > seconds. No objections. > > > Clarification to the minutes: > > Instead of "from text to data", we are removing the "#FIXED" > indication from the (already CDATA) DITAArchVersion attribute. > > More precisely, I'd phrase the decision as follows: > > DECISION: Robert moves to remove the "#FIXED" indication from > the DITAArchVersion attribute and to include version-specific > FPIs (formal public identifiers) in the catalog. Scott > seconds. No objections. > > > > > > 8. ITEM: IPR Transition > > * > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200610/msg00075.html > > (request from Mary McRae) > > > > To be discussed next meeting. > > > > Don: We're leaning towards royalty free options. > We need to > make our > > decision shortly. We'll have extended discussion next > meeting. > > > I object to having an extended discussion of this during the telcon. > > I would much prefer to spend TC telcon time working on the > technical DITA 1.1 issues. > > I would like to propose (and I will so move at the beginning > of the telcon) that we open the IPR transition issue by > asking if there are any objections to going with OASIS' > standard RF option (as the DocBook TC and others have done). > > If there are objections, those objecting can start an email > discussion about it. > > If there are no objections, we can task someone (Don?) to > draft the necessary documents offline, and then we can vote on them. > > There is nothing I'd like to avoid more than wasting telcon > time talking about IP issues. > > paul > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]