| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 14 October 2014 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
Regrets: Dick Hamilton
Approve minutes from previous business meetings:
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/54112/DITA%20TC%20Meeting%20Minutes%2016%20September%202014.txt (16 September, Don Day)
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/54314/minutes20141007.txt (7 October, Nancy Harrison)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by ??, approved by TC
Subcommittee Reports: Adoption SC
Joann: noted work on a number of feature articles and plans to update xml.org. Lots of articles are scheduled, but hasn't been 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: I've been making a lot of changes, updating things based on Trello 'improvements' item. I recently uploaded a bunch of tools I used to create contained/containment tables, something I never did it at 1.2. I updated ant scripts, and readme file; Kris tested and was able to build. 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 the ones in the dtd directory, for folks creating their own specializations.
Kris; Eliot, any updates on transformations?
Eliot; no updates, the only outstanding item is generating good versions of L&T shells. DTDs are all logged in.
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.
- 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 about 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.
NEW AxtionItem from 14 Oct.: Robert will schedule meeting on L&T shells with Kris, Eliot, John, and himself.
3. Update on first meeting of Lightweight DITA (LD) SC
Michael: we've had 2 meetings, will meet bi-weekly. We talked about goals of SC and LD. reviewed use cases and stakeholder roles, asssigned folks to look at permutations of those, e.g. how LD might be used within software dev. by different organizations; e.g. mktg, dev, writing, support.
We've got a whole group of folks, represents large range of reasons for using LD, shows applicability of LD to variouos areas. Over next meetings, SC members will 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 to 2/3 of that number are on the actual calls.
Kris; attendance has been very high, ~14/15 at each call.
Michael; lots of folks from DITA tech companies and consultants, and from different industry backgrounds; sfw, medical device content, machine industry. Also, folks from various continents, so 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, there are no updates to cover page or footer info; 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 rework, we rewrote everything, so please review it!! Key section was completely overhauled, 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 focused. Last rework is example topic, previously one example topic with many unorganized examples, Kris broke that up into multiple organized eamples. substantial overhaul of indirect addressing section of spec; we need this to be seriously reviewed
Kris; that's the #1 priority for review; #2 is branch filtering.
Robert; that was reworked in response to many comments in last review
Kris; I also reworked subjectScheme material, this also needs serious review, it now includes normative language, broke it apart into multiple topics.
Kris; also please 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 completed during spec review (by 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 rules to choose the text but all rules eventually default to linktext element. So do we want to note up front that if you want consistent text, put it in linktext?
Kris; examples in 1.2; one showed pulling from keyword, another from linktext. Going forward, we should only show pulling from linktext.
Michael; 'if you want the text to be the same in every example, use linktext' is useful, but people might actually have reasons for getting different text. Still, 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. so 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, Michael, please 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; came up with pure example is a value required for domains? In 1.2, the 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 the last case, the 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' on its 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. The spec needs to make it clear that these are required.
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 the case where no domains 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 dioscussed.
Eliot; part of the problem is that @domains is underspecified; does spec allow or disallow this what you specify for base map or base topic? if that's the case, what can/should/must the @domains be?
Robert; or we leave the status quo, and it's not answered.
Kris; we have only 1 minute left
REsolution: leave this on agenda for next week. let's discuss on listserv as well.
TC members should keep their eyes open for email announcing start of review.
closed at 11:59 EDT
-- Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]