Hi, Don.
One change to these minutes. In the discussion about product names
and Michael's musing based on Troy's e-mail, I asked about writers
who WERE monolingual English speakers. These are the folks who do
not necessarily understand cases (and how they affect noun forms)
...
And yet again, thanks for taking the minutes and turning them
around so swiftly!
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
Co-chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 1/15/2013 12:23 PM, Don R Day wrote:
In lieu of a sluggish Kavi system this morning, I submit this
record:
Minutes, DITA Technical Committee, January 15 2013
Scribe: Don Day
Chaired by Kris Eberlein
Speakers during today's call:
KE: Kris Eberlein
RA: Robert Anderson
DD: Don Day
JH: JoAnn Hackos
SD: Stan Doherty
Status of Tech Comm SC: (JoAnn)
Had first meeting, Bob Thomas working on Stage 3 proposals
with current template.
Seth's team still on Release Management proposal. MP helping
on the Steps domain for troubleshooting.
MP asked about XML domain proposals. Kris has put this item on
the agenda for today under stage 2.
MP wanted feedback on whether TC SC would want that proposal
to be part of one of their packages. Will discuss shortly.
Business:
No stage 1
Stage 2
13114 Adding @rev to <title> elements.
JoAnn reviewed the user requests that motivated the need.
Nothing new to add.
Eliot added that his publishing users likely have the same
requirement as well.
Because title is required, it has no select-atts, so there is
no reason @rev should not be allowed.
RA: Likely an oversight due to original grouping of
attributes.
KE: Will queue this for a vote next week
13035 XML Mention:
KE: is TechComm SC agreeable to add this item to their package
(Eliot would still do all the drafting).
KE: asked JoAnn to take an action to ask the SC about the
request.
Eliot reviewed the basics of the proposal for JoAnn.
Stage 3:
None for discussion
For vote:
Proposal 13078: adding @rotate to entry and @orient to table
JH: y
RA: y
MP: y
AW: y
MB: y
SD: y
DHe: y
DD: y
KE: y
DB: y
CN: y
DHa: y
EK: y
TB: y
Approved by acclamation of present voting members
New items: Difficulties mentioned on dita-users list with product
names and reuse
KE: reviewed the discussion on dita-users, referenced her note
to the tc list
* https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201301/msg00010.html
RA: reminded us of nesting keywords discussion, impact on
domain specializations (element cloning in unintended places)
DD: reviewed tension between schemas that mimic the
programming model vs need to document parts of content within that
markup.
EK: keyword is pcdata or text or tm; are there any other
elements that reuse keyword, and currently not (Robert's concern).
RA: Robert would not change the keyword model
EK: Wintitle does not allow tm, but could. Seems like an
oversight
RA: UIcontrol was motivated by output processing concerns (TM
text should not appear in a UI)
KE: Can already be abused; perhaps the question is whether
wintitle could be specialized from ph instead of keyword.
EK: Could break other's current work. Would have been ideal.
KE: has been suggesting that others specialize their own
wintitle from ph if needed.
What people want to do is define their productname in an
element. Adding tm to wintitle is a different issue.
SD: Has a practice of using a glossary with ph, text, keyword
to try to get all terms into one place for reuse--
agrees with the general reuse problem.
EK: there is a proposal to allow text where not currently
allowed, might resolve part of the issue, but does not resolve
reusable structures with semantic content (ie, product
names with particular renditions)
JH: Noted Troy K's response, intent to keep markup controls
out of the source.
KE: Notes that the management process is not available to
smaller groups.
MP: conref, conkeyref are all variable controls in DITA;
Troy's approach is setting atts on the variable attribute
to identify its usage in speech to aid translators.
DD asked about glossary and part of speech, JH and MP both
agree it is not sufficient as is.
MP no mechanism in glossary for indicating same term in
variant usage contexts.
MP would explore the idea, though. Might be beyond 1.3.
EK: Thinking of a general mechanism with glossary entry with
forms of the term with a unique label for grammatic distinctions.
Would use something like keyword to access the applicable
part. Keyword with keyref would open up use of special phrases.
System processing can be problematic.
MP: Of all the ways to do it, let's start wiht the translation
SC and capture it as a post1.3 requirement.
KE: Appreciates MP bringing up case and other options. Would
writer be responsible for indicating case?
Is that okay for non-primary-English writers?
MP: Writer just writes it; during translation, turn the
variable file into an indexed lookup table that is actually
managed by translators (those who have the linguistic
domain knowledge).
JH: affirmed that grad students can't generally diagram a
sentence--it is a widespread concern.
KE: outputclass is not available on text element--should this
be considered?
RA: explicit decision to keep it as just a pure text variable,
with semantics added by other wrappers.
KE: Another argument for not allowing tm in text.
EK: Doesn't like tm, but RA countered with real IBM use cases
in support of legal business rules about rendering usage.
RA: When contracts change, an external rules file takes care
of changes in rendering rules.
EK: trademark in text should be okay
DD: recalled IBM's use of eServer's special e font--businesses
CAN have a reason for supporting presentation in trademarks.
KE: Not much of anything we can do for DITA 1.3
EK: perhaps we can allow text wherever tm is allowed?
RA: tm is in the basic group used everywhere it is explicitly
allowed.
EK: publishing needs more generality; that is an invalid
reason in general.
SD: If writers and archs are running into limitations--are
there sensible practices to document? He'be willing to contribute.
KE: Would be happy to work with Stan on that document.
Appreciated the useful conversation, looking forward to
what we might do with glossary.
EK: be nice if tm were a specialization of text, but that's
not possible.
KE: Thanks all for the time, adjourned the call.
--
- "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
- Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
- --T.S. Eliot
|