dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 19 August 2014 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
Action Items:
1. Robert, Kris, John, and Eliot need to disucuss offline the question of whether to distribute 1 or more doctype shells for the L&T package.
2. ActionItems associated with renaming XML mention domain:
- update grammar files
- update spec docs
- changes to spec markup
- regeneration of 1.3 xml-mention plugin
3. Michael. Joann, Jan, Kris, Chris to work on dita.xml.org re-architecture.
========================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
Recorded by N. Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
regrets: none
Standing Business
=================
Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00019.html (12 August, Nancy Harrison)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Michael, approved by TC
Subcommittee Reports
none
Announcements
none
Business
========
1. DITA 1.3 progress
- First spec review (Eberlein & Anderson)
Continued
- Transformation utilities and DITA 1.3 grammar files (Kimber)
- Details of what modules should be included in what document-type shells
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00025.html (Kimber, 16 August 2014)
- Issue with Xerces parsing of DTDs and L&T parsing failures
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00026.html (Kimber, 16 August 2014)
[discussion of above two items]
Robert; the L&T committee only want to ship one type of each doctype; they want to have a doctype with the domains that retain backwards compatibility.
Eliot; the problem is that no one will be able to figure out what I did if we do that; without the shells that show how to exclude the domains you don't want; it's hard to figure out how to do that; anyone starting new with L&T won't want that, so there will be an immediate need for a shell with just the new domains.
Robert; why would it need to be excluded; why wouldn't you just not put the domain in the doctype?
Eliot; because what you're constraining out is not the learning2 domain, but the learninginteractionbase (from which all L&T is specialized) created learninginteractionbase2 domain, from which learningbase2 domain is derived.
That domain has as its base both learningbases (1&2) so you have to have to constrain one away in order to have a usable doc shell. We really need to make sure that this explanation gets to people. If there's only one shell, there's a mismatch between the way our XML is defined, and how it's implemented. btw, I've fixed the buggy doc shells so they now work, the shells as constructed now work.
Kris; we need to bring John Hunt back to revisit this issue;
ActionItem: Robert, Kris, John, and Eliot need to disucuss this offline.
2. New item: XML mention domain
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00031.html (Harrison, 18 August 2014)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00032.html (Thomas, 18 August 2014)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00035.html (Kimber, 19 August 2014)
Nancy gave overview; after her talk on this new domain in the 1.3 webinar, Sahdor Kekesi, who'd attended the webinar, wrote to ask about how we can use the new elements that start with 'xml', when the XML spec reserves the use of that string at the beginning of an SML element. We appear to be doing something illegal in XML.
Don; could we replace the 'xml' string with an 'md' string for 'markupdomain'?
Eliot; but there's also a markup domain as part of that new feature.
Kris; any thoughts?
Dick; in DocBook; we created an 'sgml' element and then had to change it to 'xml' when xml came out? Do we want it to be more generic?
Robert; this is the 'XML mention' domain; we created the markup domain to deal with more generic situation.
Jan graaf: is there an md domain?
Kris; we actually introduced 2 domains at 1.3, a 'markup' domain and, specialized from that, the XML mention domain.
Kris formally moved to rename the elements, seconded by Bob Thomas, accepted by TC
ActionItems associated with renaming:
- update grammar files
- update spec docs
- changes to spec markup
Bob; I can revisit it with Omnimark and switch the markup.
Kris; if you'll do that, it will also change the names of elements within the doc files.
Robert. we'd want to make the change globally.
Bob; I'll do some sanity testing
Eliot; the changes could also be made in Oxygen with global search/replace.
Kris; we'll need a new plugin for arch spec generation.
3. New item: Post-1.3 TC roadmap
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00033.html (Doherty, 19 August 2014)
Stan; looking at info medeling tasks for post 1.3/pre 2.0, we don't know what the plans are. So what do SCs do if they have something in between releases
Kris; I'd suggest taking the same approach as the SIDSC did; do a profile. That's what's happenng with Lightweight DITA.
Stan; so would we have a set of minutes. do we have a specific set of steps on how to go about that?
Kris; its the same process we go thru for DITA spec. approval; needs to get approved by SC, then by TC, then jump thru all the OASIS hoops.
Michael; are you thinking for SC work products, the SC wants to release its own spec?
Stan; we have requests from various industries, agile, SIDSC, maybe some specializations and maybe a domain or two...
Kris; you've got a couple of avenues; you can create a full-fledged OASIS deliverable, or something less formal, like the way the adoption TC does white papers.
Stan; I think you've answered the main question.
Kris; if an SC is putting together some industry profiles, might be the best to do white papers or adjunct grammar files.
Nancy; note that there's a tradeoff between profiles and white papaers in terms of 'legitimacy'; the SIDSC produced a register specialization, and some companies put off adopting it until it was 'official DITA' (which never happened).
Kris; it's a real chicken and egg problem.
4. New item: Hosting and sponsorship of dita.xml.org
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00036.html (Priestley, 19 August 2014)
Michael summarized the situation; the content on dita.xml.org doesn't have anyone to own it and take responsibility, isn't curated or moderated as it should be; there's lots of spam, very little good stuff. One possibility is to hand it off to someone to sponsor and run. for free publicity; it's making us look bad and it's not even using DITA-based technology. Joann, Kris and Michael have bounced the idea around and vetted it with OASIS; they know it's bad, and makes them look bad, and are willing to let us do it.
Don; I can certainly sympathize with the issue; but I'm a little surprised OASIS agreed.
Michael; it would continue to be an OASIS site, just not a Drupal site; would let the sponsor company publicize that it's their technology.
Kris; OASIS is aware how bad it is and that the limitations of Drupal have made it hard to use and maintain. Michael's points include 7 points that all support OASIS, which were talked about by Kris, Joann, Michael, and Carol Geyer from OASIS; the idea has gone off to OASIS legal, haven't heard back from them yet.
Kris; there are 3 corporate members of DITA TC with corporate products that could be used; SDL, Oberon, Mekon.
Chris; we're quite interested. (Oberon)
Joann; there's a lot of content on the site that's not DITA content; e.g. event advertising.
Michael; that should still be DITA; it's possible for us to do a full DITA site
Chris; the important thing is to take DITA and make it searchable, etc.
Kris; it's nice to be able to post PDFs to the site.
[discussion about what's required by OASIS on their HTML pages.]
Kris; If not general TC comments, then we should go on with this.
Jan Graaf; why are we limiting ourselves to companies that are current TC members? If we put out a set of requirements, we might solicit sponsors outside TC, but with requirement that they have to join OASIS/TC to become sponsor. It could help us get the best candidate.
Kris; are we limited by the need for the sponsor to be an OASIS corporate sponsor?
Jan Graaf; Maybe we could convince them to become one because of possible publicity.
Michael; more like an announcement to dita-users list was what I was thinking.
Kris; can I get a small group to work on requirements?
Joann; Michael, what were your requirements? Also, is the TC taking over the site from "Adoption TC, which currently owns it?
Don; I'll help
[Michael. Joann, Jan, Kris, Chris all volunteered to work on this.
Kris; the TC and Adoption TC might come up with a slim list of requirements, and leave it to potential tech providers to suggest format and implementation.
Stan; is there any other site sponsored by OASIS that's doing this?
Michael; no, we'd be the precedent, that's why OASIS folks are excited by our proposal. if there's a chance to outsource
Kris; lots of ways in which we break new ground.
closed at 12:00
-- Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]