| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 7 October 2014 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
[ignore all below]
Regrets: Tom Magliery, Dave Helfinstine
minutes from previous business meeting:
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/54112/DITA%20TC%20Meeting%20Minutes%2016%20September%202014.txt (16 September, Don Day)
approval postponed till next week since online agenda wasn't updated
Joann: SC is working on feature articles and plans to update xml.org. Lots of articles are scheduled, but so far not a lot of progress on having draft articles written. So all TC members, please help out with this...
1. DITA 1.3 progress First spec review (Eberlein & Anderson)
Transformation utilities and DITA 1.3 grammar files (Kimber)
Robert: been making a lot of changes, updated things based on improvements from Trello items. I recently uploaded a bunch of tools I used to create contained/containment tables (we never did this at 1.2); also updated ant scripts, and readme file; Kris tested and was able to build. Updated tools are in svn/containment. got a branched copy of some of Eliot's RNG code, since his version is newer than these.
Kris; readme file is very clear
Robert; one thing missing is easier to generate tables for new doctypes, other than ones in the dtd directory, for folks creating their own specializations.
Kris; Eliot, are there any updates on transformations?
Eliot; no updates, the only outstanding items are generating good versions of L&T shells. DTDs are all logged in. One
2. Action items
Action items from 19 August 2014
Shells for L & T: Robert, Kris, Eliot, and John to meet when John is back from vacation; being scheduled.
Kris; trying to schedule; we need to clear this.
Robert; I'll take on this AI.
NewActionItem: Robert will arrange for meeting to discuss L&T shells.
Action items from 26 August 2014:
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. This is in regard to content re limitations of XSD shells and constraints. (Waiting on Kris to generate new versions of spec, which was done 7 October 2014)
Action items from 2 September:
Stan to assess Front Page wiki for possible clean-up
Action items from 16 September:
Robert will send details about necessary OASIS comments in grammar files to Eliot.
3. Update on first meeting of Lightweight DITA SC
(For when Michael P. is present)
Michael: we've had 2 meetings, we'll meet biweekly. We talked about goals of SC and LightweightDITA (LD), reviewed use cases and stakeholder roles, assigned folks to look at permutations of those, e.g. how LD might be used within sfw development by mktg, dev, writing, support. We've got a whole group of folks, representing a large range of reasons for using LD, this shows applicability of LD to various areas. Over the next few meetings, we'll report back on user roles, scenarios, and business cases.
Kris; who's been at meetings and where are they from?
Michael... ~20 members registered, about 1/2 - 2/3 of that number actually on the calls.
Kris; attendance has been very high, ~14-15 at each call.
Michael; lots of folks from DITA tech companies and consultants, and from diff industry backgrounds; sfw, med content, machine industry, geographic diversity
4. Announcement of 2nd spec review: 10 - 24 October 2014
Wiki page contains:
Download link for official review draft
Tracking tables for review assignments
Information about prizes (yet to be determined)
Kris went over review goals and requirements, no updates to cover page or footer info; we will have errata and revision info flagged
Objectives for this review:
- all of key--based content particularly in indirect key-based material; Question, is there material in other sections that has to be aligned with this?
Need serious attention to this.
Robert; in the latest rework, we rewrote everything, so please review it!! Key section was completely overhauled, now focuses on core concepts needed for working with keys, also completely reworked key processing topics; was one huge topic, now split apart and more tightly focussed. last rework is example topic, previously one example topics with many unorganized examples, Kris broke that up into multiple organized eamples. substantial overhaul of indirect addressing section of spec; we need to be seriously reviewed
Kris; that's the #1 priority for review; #2 is branch filtering.
Robert; in response to many comments in lasat review
Kris; I also reworked subjectscheme material, this also need serious review, now includes normative language, broke it apart into multiple topics.
Kris; really look at draft-comments; we need to address these.
5. Solicitation of volunteers for specific spec review assignments
Trello cards from the "Spec clarification and improvement list
willingness to go to Trello card, investigate associated materials, add comments in DITAWeb on how to addresst the issue
need to have work co mpleted during spec review (bye end of Oct)
#2, #25, #8 all constraints, Bob Thomas? Nancy (both agreed to look at them and possibly volunteer)
6. Prizes for review #2:
Volunteer to collect and mail prizes?
Kris asked for volunteers for ocllect/mail
DickH and Joann (books) and Eliot (bacon)
Stan will collect/mail
7. Question about keyref and replacement text
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201409/msg00027.html (Anderson, 22 September 2014)
Robert; getting text for a keyref uses complicated reules to choose the text but all rules eventually default to 'linktext'. So do we want to note up front that if you want consistent text, put it in lin ktext.
Kris; examples in 1.2; one showed pulling fro keyword, other from linktext. going forward, we should only show one preferred method...
Michael; I support us telling them: 'if you want the text to be the same in every example, use linktext'. People might actually have reasons for getting different text, but if all you want is the same thing, use linktext.
Robert; the edge cases are part of the spec, and need to remain there. I think there are very few people who understand inheritance well enought to understand the edge case
Michael; but an element can pull text from a matching element name. it's worth documenting the edge case.
Robert; that is covered in the new content.
Kris; should Robert just change the spec source? Give an example?
Robert; I'm planning to update the text.
Kris; Robert, go ahead and update spec text, mp craft an example if you think it needs one.
8. Question about @domains attribute
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201410/msg00000.html (Anderson, 3 October 2014)
Robert; we came up with pure example, questions is: is a value required for domains? In 1.2, spec clearly encourages that we add the @domains. I was surprised to hear about tokens added by Eliot 'map map' and 'topic topic'
Eliot; in last case, first token says 'what kind of thing am I?' (map or topic) and second, what kind of map;/topic am i?
Robert; I don't understand why you would want to declare that. that info is already in @class, so if we have this token, it should just be 'map' 'topic' onits own. These tokens are going in unnoticed.
Kris; so these currently exist in 1.3?
Eliot; that's how I specified base attribution for base map and topic. Spec needs to make it clear that
Robert; people conref between maps and topics; will this make that more difficult?
Eliot; we'll need to specifically allow that case. in 1.1 we allowed no domains to exist.
Robert; I still don't think we've thought it thru.
Eliot; so your proposal is that
Robert; my gut reaction is that we shouldn't be adding these tokens at all.
Eliot; in 1.2 we say that a dita map/topic is formally defined by the domains attribute. so I think we need to have a value there.
Robert; I'm wary about that. it's often been talked about, but I've never encountered a scenario where it was useful. especially where there are caveats and extra required rules.
Eliot; but don't we have that now, just not explicitly noted?
Robert; not sure what impact it would have on conref, if any... don't know if this token will confuse that processing.
Kris; we always need to be careful of artifacts creeping in that we haven't formally discussed.
Eliot; part of the problem is that @domains is underspecified; does the spec allow or disallow what you specify for base map or base topic? And if that's the case, what can/should/must the @domains be?
Robert; or we can leave the status quo, and it's not answered
Kris; we have only 1 minute left
leave on agenda for next week. let's discuss on list serve
keep eyes open for email announcing start of review.
closed at 11:59 Eastern
-- Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]