Minutes from DITA TC meeting on 1 August 2009

["Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)" <gerjosep@cisco.com>]

 

 

Gershon Joseph Technical Leader PDI DocTools gerjosep@cisco.com Phone: +972 9 892-7157 Mobile: +972 57 314-1170	Cisco Systems, Inc. Israel Cisco home page

Think before you print.

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

Cisco Systems Limited (Company Number: 02558939), is registered in England and Wales with its registered office at 1 Callaghan Square, Cardiff, South Glamorgan CF10 5BT

 

DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes
========================================


The DITA Technical Committee met on 1 September 2009 at 08:00am PT for 60 
minutes.

Chaired by Don Day <dond@us.ibm.com>
Minutes recorded by Gershon Joseph <gerjosep@cisco.com>


Roll call
> Quorum was achieved.


Approve minutes from previous business meetings: 
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200908/msg00179.html (25 August 2009, Gershon)
> Minutes approved by acclamation.


Subcommittee/liaison reports (as needed) 
> None this week.
> Next week the Adoption TC will provide an update.


ITEM: DITA 1.2 specification (Revised for the September 1 TC meeting, Eberlein) 

* Business: 

  * Outstanding action items: 

    * Add hazard-statement graphics to applicable lang ref topics (Kravogel) 

    > Chris: I've created some proposals and sent them to the MI SC to 
    > review them. We meet after this TC meeting and I hope to get a decision 
    > allowing me to deliver final images tomorrow.

    * Documenting how to generate the "Contains" and "Contains by" sections 
      (Anderson, due 1 September 2009) 

    > Robert: The information is there, but the sections I added got 
    > overwritten. I need to add the conrefs back in.
    > Don: Authors, please check that you have the latest version locally from 
    > SVN before you make updates, to avoid overwriting newer versions.

    > ACTION: Kris to contact folks who overwrote others' files

    > Authors who make an edit must check in ASAP after making the changes, and 
    > if they need to keep the file open for a longer period of time, they 
    > should lock the file.

    * Add work item about "Map element IDs and references to them" to 
      applicable Wiki page (Eberlein) 


ITEM: Order for lang ref files 
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200908/msg00101.html (Eberlein) 
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200908/msg00154.html (Priestley) 
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200909/msg00009.html (Eberlein) 

> Kris: Initially I ordered them alphabetically. Michael suggested that may not 
> be the most logical reading order. My most recent email (last bullet link 
> above) contains links to graphics showing some prototypes for discussion.

> The TC agreed to move concept, task and reference elements up one level and 
> remove the "Topic elements" wrapper from the Technical content map.

> The TC agreed to rename "Map elements" in the Technical content map to 
> "Bookmap elements".

> Jeff: When we say "task" do we mean the task doctype shell or are we talking 
> about the task topic type? We're doing a little bit of both in the section, 
> so we need to be clear in the spec when whether we're talking about one or 
> the other.

> Kris: We're talking about the lang ref, so it should be OK. Suggested 
> shelving this discussion until we're looking at the actual content rather 
> than the TOC alone.

> Kris asked the TC to consider the Base TOC - where should I put "Table 
> elements"? I dumped it under "Topic elements". 
> The TC agreed it's best to keep it where it is.

> The second last container in "Base" is "Other elements" -- can we come up 
> with a better name?

> Michael: Elements common to map and topic are not called out right now.

> Robert: We now have almost all topic elements in map too. So not sure we can 
> do this.

> Michael: We should open a DITA 1.3 bug to limit <desc> to only topics. 

> ACTION:  Michael to add an entry for this bug to the 1.3 feature list Wiki.

> If anyone on the TC has a better name for "Other elements" please suggest one
> on the email list.

> CONTINUED.


ITEM: CTR not universal (was packaging of glossaries) 
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200908/msg00135.html (Grantham/Kimber) 
  * Sub discussion: Packaging discussion (spawned from "packaging of 
    glossaries") 
  * Sub discussion: Semantics of CTR, role of business documents, etc. 

> Nothing for 1.2 spec. Don to remove from agenda.


New ITEM: @lockmeta and help convergence 
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200909/msg00001.html

> Eliot: The 1.2 spec is not clear on what @lockmeta actually means and in 
> addition what the effective default value is. When reviewing it again last 
> night I posted what I thought was meant, but then Jeff posted from the 1.1 
> arch spec that made it less clear -- indicating the default value is "yes" 
> meaning the topicref metadata takes precedence over the topic metadata, to 
> which Jeff added some additional questions indicating @lockmeta is not fully 
> cooked.
> In the context of help discussion, Tony indicated they have a requirement for 
> controlling the propagation of a specific metadata value. @lockmeta was not 
> intended for this. So the help item becomes a 1.3 discussion. For 1.2 at a 
> minimum we need to ensure the language in the arch spec and lang ref 
> correctly reflects the design intent of @lockmeta. Topic metadata for 
> topicref and topic get merged and that becomes the effective metadata for 
> that topic and topicref -- but @lockmeta does not say this.

> Kris: The current 1.2 spec has a clear statement [I didn't capture the exact phrase Kris read--Ed] "by default, metadata in the map overrides... unless lockmeta is set to no" in a topic called "Metadata in maps and topics".

> Jeff: This information is correct. This is the same language that's leading 
> Eliot to his interpretation of the intended behavior. In many cases there 
> cannot be a conflict because the metadata can merge. Only if there's a 
> conflict does the processor need to merge. So we need to make this clear.
> There are some questions that I raised that come out of this: (e.g. is 
> shortdesc a special case?)

> Kris: navtitle and shortdesc are special cases which are documented in their 
> topics, but we don't say it here. Jeff would like us to say this here too.

> Eliot: The lang ref for @lockmeta needs to be updated to match what the arch 
> spec says.

> Jeff: When we say "metadata" we don't clarify what we mean. We should be 
> explicit and state what it includes. 

> Kris: The same topic states clearly where metadata can be applied.

> Jeff: Does it say whether @lockmeta applies to all of them or just some of 
  them?

> Kris: I need to check and track this. Suggested Eliot looks at this topic to 
> check whether it adequately covers his concerns.

> Jeff: The main thing to check is to ensure this is clearly mentioned in 
> the @lockmeta discussion. Eliot suggested as long as there's a xref to this 
> info it's OK, and Jeff agreed to this.

> Stan: There are some specific use cases we rely on in the help SC that we 
> need to check.

> The TC agreed that this is out of scope for 1.2, since the help SC usage is 
> for 1.3.

>CLOSED.


New item: "Introduction to DITA" topics 
* http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/200909/msg00006.html (Eberlein) 
* http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/200909/msg00007.html (Joseph) 
* http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/200909/msg00008.html (Kimber)

> Kris: Eliot suggested moving the topic from the arch spec to the overall doc
  (now that we've merged the arch and lang specs).
> Those of us authoring the spec need to discuss the intro and overview 
  material, but we can have that discussion on the list.

> CONTINUE discussion on list.

>CONTINUED.

*** Meeting Adjourned ***