| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 11 June 2013 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 11 June 2013
Recorded by N. Harrison
regrets: Eliot Kimber
Minutes from 2 last meetings:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201306/msg00035.html (28 May, Harrison)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Joann, approved by TC
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201306/msg00036.html (4 June, Harrison)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Don, approved by TC
None (Help SC for July 2)
1. DITA 1.3 progress
Progress between 27 May-2 June: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201306/msg00000.html (Eberlein)
Update on current deadlines: http://chris.nitchie.com/trellotrack/#511a73d76ee890a51c0007ed
Trello Board: https://trello.com/b/gPKH0OcF
Kris reviewed status from the previous week.
MichaelP is considering delivering Lightweight DITA as a profile, to separate it from the 1.3 schedule and allow it to run on separate track.
ChrisN raised the question of whether owners of pending stage3 proposals should wait till stage 2 is complete to put them on the TC review/discussion/vote schedule, or get them in asap.
Kris; not sure about that; let's discuss ITEM 2 first
2. ITEM: Releasing DITA 1.3 in 2014? 2017? 2018?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201305/msg00084.html (Eberlein, 28 May)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201306/msg00039.html (Eberlein, 11 June)
Kris suggested Sept 1 as a hard deadline for all complete stage 2 proposals and
end of 2013 for all completed Stage 3 proposals
Robert; This basically gives owners a deadline; that's useful.
Kris; This puts the onus on champions who have proposals that need discussion to get them in early for review so that any changes required from review have time to be carefully implemented and reviewed before final vote.
Robert; The alternative is to send out general design early for discussion, then stage 2 proposals have a better chance of going thru smoothly.
Kris moved that the TC approve her suggestion, seconded by Robert, agreed to by TC
Action item; Kris will send mail on this to TC and various SCs that may be impacted.
3. DITA 1.3 proposals, stage 2: http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA_1.3_Proposals-stage2
Ready for discussion:
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=49394&wg_abbrev=dita (DITA, uploaded 3 June)
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=49395&wg_abbrev=dita (HTML, uploaded 3 June)
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=49396&wg_abbrev=dita (PDF, uploaded 3 June)
Robert gave an overview. 2 main use cses covered by 1 design
1. use a DITAVAL file to set conditions only on one branch
2. use multiple DITAVAL files, to create a document with multiple copies of the conditionalized branches, each being the result of one DITAVAL file.
- ChrisN; how does the IBM implementtion work?
- Robert; It just concatenates the multipe resultant branches.
- ChrisN suggested some other possible ways to implement it; e.g. a DITAVAL 'group' element, but he had no strong feeling either way about the implementation details..
- Robert; My inclination is not to change the proposed design, but I wouldn't object either if everyone preferred it; it's a better design, but a bit more work.
- ChrisN; we can live without a DITAVAL 'group' for 1.3, we can add it later if we decide ti's really necessary.
- Kris; We should try and think that way about 1.3 proposals in general; can we live with what we have now and add to it/improve it in a future release if necessary.
- Robert; my particuar areas of concern on this proposal were keys (but Eliot not here) and maybe some edge cases, though i tried to enumerate as many as I could.
- ChrisN; My best guess would be to copy/paste a branch multiple times, and the first key that appears in the traverse would win
- Robert; Or we could resolve keys before doing the DITAVAL stuff, but that could mess you up... Imagine a set of steps to be repeated in all 3 [repeated] branches, and that has conref'd conditions; conref has to be done first, or it will be wrong.
- ChrisN; There could also be issues related to conkeyrefpush, to get the right order.
- Robert; I want to discuss that at a future meeting.
Action Item; the stage 3 version of this proposal needs to contain verbiage in spec to give guidelines on and implications of processing order.
Resolution; vote onthis next week.
a https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201306/msg00024.html (HTML, uploaded 7 June)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201306/msg00023.html (PDF, uploaded 7 June)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201306/msg00022.html (DITA, uploaded 7 June)
Robert gave a quick overview; if you have a map for using a product in 2 OSs, and specify all 3 OS conditions, all platform attributes will cascade and merge, even if you only want one OS for a particular subtree.
Robert: O- ne concern was whether cascading values cause a problem in topics as well. David H's review of the proposal says that doesn't happen within topic bodies, except in rel-links.
- ChrisN; So if that 's the case, we should mention it. If cascading rules don't have the same applicability as conditional @s, these conditional @s don't cascade within topics, except within rel-links.
Resolution; TC will return to this discussion next week.
Ready for vote: Voting options are "Yes," "No," "No objections," "I don't understand the proposal," and "I have reservations"
4. DITA 1.3 proposals, stage 3: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA_1.3_Proposals-stage3
Ready to assign reviewers
13111: MathML domain(Owner: Kimber; Reviewers: Anderson and Hamilton; reviewers assigned on 28 May 2013)
element (Owner: Kimber; Reviewers: Doherty & Day; reviewers assigned on 14 May 2013)
13027: Allow in more places (Owner: Kimber; Reviewers: Harrison & Tivy; reviewers assigned on 14 May 2013)
13029: Allow in more places (Owner: Kimber; Reviewers: Day & Hamilton; reviewers assigned on 14 May 2013)
13089: learningObjectMap and learningGroupMap (Owner: Myers; Reviewers: Kimber & Hudson; reviewers assigned on ?)
Discussion (targeted for June 18)
13107: Refined scope and format defaults (Nitchie)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201306/msg00032.html (DITA, uploaded 10 June)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201306/msg00033.html (HTML, uploaded 10 June)
Ready for vote: Voting options are "Yes," "No," and "Abstain"
13090, updates to the DITAVAL @style attribute (Nitchie)
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=49369&wg_abbrev=dita (HTML, uploaded 30 May)
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=49368&wg_abbrev=dita (DITA, uploaded 30 May)
Results: unanimous approval of members present: Anderson, Bissantz, Boses, Buchholz, Doherty, Day, Eberlein, Hackos, Hamilton, Harrison, Helfinstine, Hudson, Myers, Nitchie, Priestley, Warman
5. NEW ITEM: Improved Table Accessibility submission for Stage 1
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201305/msg00091.html (Hudson, 28 May)
Note: Follows from this previous discussion:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201303/msg00085.html (Hudson, 29 March)
Scott gave an overview;
1. add 'rowheader' as child of colspec element.
2. allow @scope on entry element.
3. allow @headers on entry elements.
4. Since there is no @summary in CALS, the table's summary should be allowed in a 'caption'.
DocBook has already added these to its table model; we'd like to ask CALS to adopt these as well. These help identify row headers for accessibility - screen readers.
- Kris; I see two issues
1 do we want this?
2. are we past time for stage 1?
- Nancy, DickH, and ChrisN spoke in favor of adding it to 1.3, especially since until now there had not been an official 'deadline' for submitting items, and in any case this item was subitted a while ago, it just hadn't been up for discussion until now. TC agreed to approve this for inclusion in 1.3 (with the concerns expressed in the following discussion).
- Kris agreed, and suggested that the TC vote to end acceptance of 1.3 proposals after this one, which the TC did (see below).
- There was considerable discussion of the proposal's use of a 'caption' element. Since HTML already uses a 'caption' element, we don't want to confuse authors by having conflicting uses, or different uses, for an already-familiar item. The issue is that in HTML, a caption is always expected to be rendered, and this use of caption would only be 'rendered' as part of accessibility' i.e. for a screen reader. It definitely has the potential to confuse authors.
Resolution: continue this discussion next week.
Kris moved to no longer accept any Stage 1 proposal for DITA 1.3, seconded by Stan, approved by TC.
meeting closed at 11:57
-- Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]