[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007
Hi all, I have attached amended minutes that I believe incorporate the fixes that Paul pointed out. If all is OK with these at today's TC meeting, I'll upload these minutes to the OASIS TC site and delete the previously uploaded incorrect minutes. Gershon -- Gershon L Joseph Director of Technology and Single Sourcing Tech-Tav Documentation Ltd. Secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Secretary, OASIS DITA Translation Subcommittee Member, OASIS DocBook Technical Committee office: +972-8-974-1569 mobile: +972-57-314-1170 web: http://www.tech-tav.com
DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007
(Recorded by Gershon Joseph <gershon@tech-tav.com>)
The DITA Technical Committee met on Tuesday, 2 January 2007 at 08:00am PT
for 60 minutes.
1. Roll call
We have quorum.
2. Accept minutes from previous business meeting:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00027.html (12 Dec)
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00028.html (correction on PTC position)
Accepted with correction. [moved by Don, seconded by Rob Frankland, no objections]
3. Business:
1. ITEM: Review schedule for CD vote (initiate the 1.1 review process)
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00031.html (Michael Priestley)
Michael suggested formal TC vote to accept the spec next meeting.
Don: If I get the lang spec out in a couple of days, can we have
the vote on the 16th?
The latest production kit reduces the total page count to about 600
pages (based on alphabetical map).
Michael: The chapter-based document will be smaller, since the
alphabetical one starts each element on a new page. I expect it will
be under 200 pages.
Don: I'll contact Chris Wong to find out how to generate the change
bars, so the lang spec will include change bars.
Don: It appears the TC wants to take a week by week decision on
when to vote on the spec.
ACTION: Don to include revisit of this discussion on 16 Jan agenda.
2. ITEM: Ongoing review of 1.1 drafts
* Architectural Spec: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00033.html
Don: Some list feedback on Michael's questions.
Michael: Should we deprecate the grouped value syntax for conditional
property values in otherprops? List discussion was in favor of deprecating.
Paul clarifies that this means we'll pull the element out in 2.0, not 1.x.
Michael moves to deprecate the grouped value syntax in otherprops in
favor of adding new attributes. JoAnn seconds. No objections.
DECISION: Deprecate the grouped value syntax in otherprops with
documentation to recommend adding attributes.
Discussion on whether implementations must support deprecated elements.
Consensus that they do not have to support deprecated elements.
* Remaining questions: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00034.html
Michael proposes to remove the following sentence:
"The rule may be relaxed in future versions of DITA if a mechanism is
added for tracking dependencies between structural and domain specializations
in use by a document type."
DECISION: To be removed. No objections.
Michael proposes to remove the reference to architectural forms from
the class attribute discussion.
Some TC members pointed out the comparison may not be useful as an
explanation of the class attribute. Proposal to rewrite to stand on
its own to describe the class attribute.
Michael: This is only a wording change. If no objections, I'll make the change.
Paul: You can't just remove the sentence making the comparison and
leave the rest. The following sentence needs to be recast.
Michael: Yes, that works.
DECISION: Remove the following text:
"It's something like an architectural forms attribute, except that
it contains multiple mappings in a single attribute, instead of
one mapping per attribute."
and recast the following sentence:
"Also, DITA scopes values by module type (for example topic
type, domain type, or map type) instead of document type..."
Michael: Should we add catalogs and public identifiers to the arch spec?
Paul: Catalogs are part of the tool, but not part of the spec. Public
IDs should be in the spec, but catalogs don't need to be part of the spec.
DECISION: Include the public IDs; do not include the catalog.
No objections.
* Language Spec: updating from Fix List: http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Fix_list_for_1.1_Language_Spec_draft
* DTD: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200611/msg00044.html
* XSD: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00029.html
Don: Has anyone used the 1.1 DTDs yet?
Gershon: we are integrating DITA 1.1 DTDs into a CMS at this time,
and expect to have a fully working product implementation in about 2 weeks.
Paul: We have included the 1.1 DTDs and XSDs in Arbortext 5.3 that was
released on 29 December 2006.
Chris: We have used them at a client.
Don: Should we keep a public list of who is testing and using the 1.1 DTDs?
ACTION: Don to set up a Wiki page for list of implementers. TC members
to add details of their projects to the page.
3. ITEM: What is a topic? (need to stage the discussion against roadmap)
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00038.html (Kimber)
Don: Good discussion on the list. Is anything still open with respect
to the 1.1 schedule?
JoAnn: I reread the arch spec on topic and don't think anything there
needs updating. The spec does not reflect some of the issues Eliot
brings up. It's mainly an issue of legacy definition, not really an
issue of what a topic is.
Eliot: I agree, but feel we need a crisper definition of what a topic
is and an example of when a topic should have just a title.
The arch spec must be consistent with the lang spec, which is not the
current case.
Michael: Glossary for example is a topic without a body.
Edge cases, such as legacy docs, ultra-small topics, and leaf nodes
could be directly addressed in the arch spec...
Don: The edge cases may be better addressed via Best Practice on
migration of legacy content.
Michael: It's not only migration, it's fitting content that does not
easily fit into DITA which is not necessarily migration.
JoAnn: Michael, could you add a single paragraph to the arch spec rather
than a whole new topic?
Michael: I'll try to draft up something and send to the list.
Eliot: There is no formal definition of topic, and I feel there should be.
Michael: We need a technical definition of what a topic is, since it
supports more than a pure topic.
ACTION: Michael to post text to list for comment.
--
Don: Gershon, can you get the front cover overrides done in this timeframe?
Gershon: Yes, I'll put a developer on it.
Discussion: Will base overrides on DITA-OT 1.3.1.
4. ITEM: Translation best practices
* No new status--meetings will resume Jan 8
Chris: We published our hazard statement domain on 12 December. We are
currently working on a specialization of task for troubleshooting, ETA
Easter time.
4. Announcements/Opens
JoAnn: I submitted a panel discussion for business case for DITA at the OASIS
symposium. Anyone who would like to participate should contact JoAnn.
-- Meeting adjourned at 09:00 --
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]