dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 26 August 2014 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
Action Items (many...):
1 - Michael will post email to TC list with info on first meeting time/access info and instructions for joining the Lightweight DITA SC.
2 - Kris will post results of our discussion today to the SIDSC list to try and spark some activity; we will close that SC at the end of Nov. unless it's running again.
3 - Robert will respond to Julio on the list with our decision to put category/@keyref on the 'consider at 2.0' list.
4 - Kris will add category/@keyref, in context of metadata reuse, to our 2.0 list for discussion at 2.0.
5 - Kris will respond to Radu wrt ol/@numeration with the information that the TC is currently split on the issue, with some fo it and some against, and it will be revisited in a larger context at 2.0.
6 - Don will draft a note on our decision to use the 'xml' prefix for our xmlmention domain, to be put into xmlmention topic explaining the issue.
7 - Eliot will modify RNG grammar files to add @href to 'glossref'.
8 - Robert will update language spec file to add @href to 'glossref'.
9 - Kris and Robert will fix the arch/lang spec as suggested to include the correct information in spec about RNG-to-DTD-and-XSD generator
10 - Nancy will review specialization and constraints topics, with the purpose of: a) suggesting placement for new topic or content chunk, b) reviewing for clarity, organization, technical accuracy
========================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 26 August 2014
Recorded by N. Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
regrets: Mark Myers
Standing Business
=================
Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00059.html (19 August, Nancy Harrison)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Joann, approved by TC
Subcommittee Reports
none
Announcements
DITA 1.3 Troubleshooting Webinar, Wednesday, 27 August 2014, 11-12:30 PM EDT
Business
========
1. DITA 1.3 progress
First spec review (Eberlein & Anderson)
no updates
Transformation utilities and DITA 1.3 grammar files (Kimber)
Eliot has updated grammar files
JohnH on vacation till next week, so the questions on this re: L&T learningbase[1|2] are on hold.
2. Action items from previous meetings
Shells for L & T: Robert, Kris, Eliot, and John to meet
dita.xml.org: Don, Kris, Jo!Ann, and Michael to meet
XML mention domain
Update grammar files (Kimber)
Update spec (Thomas)
Update plug-in for for styling elements (Kimber)
3. New item: Lightweight DITA Subcommittee (Priestley)
Encourage members to join
First meeting planned for week of 11-15 September 2014
Michael; first meeting will be in mid-Sept, will post general call via email
Kris; in your email, include how you can join the SC
ActionItem: Michael will post email to TC list with info on first meeting time/access info and instructions for joining the SC.
4. New item: Closing Semiconductor Information Design SC
Kris; there's been no recent activity or chair (Bob left Freescale and is no longer an OASIS member).
Joann; we should wait a bit, we just heard of a semiconductor company that's intending to join OASIS just to work on SIDSC content. Let's hold off on this.
Kris; OK, but if there's nothing happening by Nov, we can close it.
Nancy; keep me in the loop, please
ActionItem; Kris will post results of our discussion today to the SIDSC list to try and spark some activity; we will close the SC at the end of Nov. unless it's running again.
5. New item: dita-comment list: Why no @keyref on category?
Eliot; category is a base element, not a specialization of data, maybe that's why...
Robert; big part of answer is 'no one ever asked for it'
Michael; at any rate, a category can contain keyword, which can contain keyref
Robert; it never was a conscious discussion of not including it, but it was never asked for.
Kris; 2 issues:
1) how do we want to respond to this?
2) is this something we'd want to address, given that it's not a bug fix?
Eliot; it would be a bunch of work to change it
Robert; ditto, maybe in 2.0
Eliot; in 2.0 it could be rearchitected as a specialization of data.
ActionItems:
- Robert will respond to Julio on the list with our decision to put this on the 'consider at 2.0' list.
- Kris will add this, in context of metadata reuse, to our 2.0 list for discussion at 2.0.
6. New item: dita-comment list: Consider adding an attribute "numeration" to ordered lists
Kris; Radu asks for a '@numeration', with values like 'arabic', 'number', etc.
Michael; that's an output issue, should be tied to an output.
Eliot, in publishing context, we need to have it. I had to add it to dita4publishers.
[major discussion on content vs format]
Don; we might need it looking ahead to other industries esides publishers; e.g. govt documents and some DITA for the Web issues.
Chris; this falls under a broader set of issues related to numbering; e.g. we don't control starting-point/ending-point numbers, needed in legal content where numbers really matter. Maybe numbering features is something we should look at in 2.0.
Michael; I agree with beginning-ending numbers. wrt Don's idea, do we really want to be bundling CSS properties into an authored document. But agree that it's worth looking at requirements beyond tech pubs,
Eliot; since we let data be a direct child of li, I can do anything I need for my clients.
Michael; we could do it as 'data element domain' instead of an attribute;
I think it should be opt-in rather than opt-out.
Kris; in any case, there's nothing to be done until 2.0, so I'll respond to Radu. (TC is currently split on the issue, some thinking it's necessary, some thinking it's inappropriate)
ActionItem: Kris will respond to Radu with the information that the TC's currently split on the issue, with some fo it and some against, and it will be revisited in a larger context at 2.0.
7. XML mention domain revisited
[More research has revealed that the reservation of the 'xml' string is no longer in the XML spec, so we can avoid having to make any changes.]
Kris; so, we were unaware of fact that it was no longer a problem.
Don; in the future, we need to be cautious; we can go ahead with using the 'xml', but we need to explain it, for people who remember the reservation and don't know it's gone away.
Michael; we could include a note and link in the xmlmention topic
Robert; we don't want too much, just a note and/or link in the parent xmlmention topic.
ActionItem; Don will draft the note to be put into topic explaining the issue.
8. New item: @href attribute required on glossref
Eliot; just noticed this bug
Don; since it has a referencing semantic, is it required?
[TC agreed that it should be consistent with similar elements.]
Robert; makes sense
Kris; we'll treat this as a bug fix.
ActionItems;
- Eliot will modify RNG grammar files to add @href to 'glossref'
- Robert will update language spec file.
9. Continued item: Information in spec about RNG-to-DTD-and-XSD generator
BobT gave overview on his review of the information in the spec; he only found 3 places where it's mentioned incorrectly. He recommends we refer to it as infrequently as possible.
Chris; I echo Bob's recommendations; plus we need to be consistent about Relax NG/RelaxNG spelling (does it have a space or not?) inconsistenncy.
ActionItem; Kris and Robert will fix the arch/lang spec as suggested
10. New item: XSD constraint specification
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00056.html (Kimber, 25 August 2014)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201408/msg00058.html (Kimber, 25 August 2014)
Kris; Eliot, are your mails simply informative, or do we need to do something?
Eliot; there's a way to do the constraints more simply than the way we're doing it now. I think the spec needs to allow that approach. However, we may not need an action. For some constraints, we could do things a lot more simply. But for other constraints, where you remove something and repalace it at same time, we can't use that new, simpler method. Finally, there's a class of constraints,
when you integrate a domain, that in RNG can simply omit the base type the domain extends and only include the extension, but in XSD, can't leave things out and add things in at the same time.
Eric Sirois; I agree with Eliot; for that scenario, there's no way around a 2-step process
Eliot; we could add metadata to make it happen; right now I'm special-casing special TC models. I don't see a way to generalize that.
Kris; I'd agree; are there changes the TC needs to make? if not, are there changes to the arch spec that you'd suggest? Does this change agenda item #11?
Eliot; This won't change the gist of the spec, but it might change details. we'll need to look at spec carefully once we're clear on what we can and can't do.
11. Continued item: Suggested TC position with regard to XSD usage
In what topic should this information be located?
Action item: Review specialization and constraints topics (Nancy Harrison, continued from 12 August)
Suggest placement for new topic or content chunk
Review for clarity, organization, technical accuracy
close at 11:56
-- Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]