| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 27 October 2015 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:51:12 -0800 (PST)
1. Kris will fix the spec in response to the comment on multiple 'steps' elements i a general task.
2. Robert will fix the spec in response to 2 comments: 1) about 'mathml' elements and 2) about @processing-role for reltable elements
3. Eliot will investigate to make sure that there are no unforeseen impacts from changing the default for the @processing-role in reltable elements; assuming there are not, he will make the change.
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
Regrets: Joann, Tom
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201510/msg00049.html (Tom Magliery, for 13 October)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Nancy, approved by TC
1. Action items
15 September 2015:
Stan: Assess how lists are ordered in the Language Reference
Stan; has started on this, found original message
6 October 2015:
Bob: Build DITA-OT 2.1 plug-in for XHTML version of committee note
13 October 2015:Robert responded
Bob; still in progress, fighting with numbering
Robert: Respond to Toshihiko Makito's e-mail to dita-comment (COMPLETED)
2. Report from Lavacon
[Kris Eberlein, Robert Anderson, Keith Schengli-Roberts, Tom Magliery, Amber Swope]
Robert; Tom and Keith are absent; hold some of this for next week
Kris; the conference had an excellent presentation for a new product (Authorbridge?) tool for a non-DITA-savvy writer. Also had a good talk on 'DITA for machines' metadata; and there were also some high-level presentations that went right over their heads. Robert?
Robert; there were lots of people there who weren't interested in DITA.
Kris; I'm thinking that many presentations on DITA, at conferences that aren't specifically on DITA, are too high-level.
Don; the problem is that vendors tend to come up with high-level prpesentation ideas, or ones on 'new' stuff; either vendors need to consider audience more carefully, or conference selection committee needs to put more care into recruiting and selecting presentations.
Kris; people planning DITA tracks need to be more careful in their RFPs. Amber? what about infodev world?
Amber; there's a subset of people (i.e. us) who are tired of DITA 101 anymore, but lots of people still need it. I don't kow how many lower level presentations are submitted.
Amber; maybe we need to make sure that there's at least one 'DITA 101' at each conf.
Kris; also, we need to make sure that each conference has both low- and high-level DITA presentations.
Kris; It's good for all of us if users' intro exposure to DITA is positive, not over their heads.
Amber; maybe we can identify a subset of lower level presentations, and even submit 2 proposals.
Scott; maybe we could create on Frame-to-DITA migration, or Flare to DITA
Amber; we need to find clients who have migrated recently and talk to them.
Michael; I've been trying to povide feedback to organizers who are trying to do this already; we need to be tactful; we want to make sure that intro sessions are scheduled at the front of conference, not after the advanced session.
Amber; we want to do something that's very deliverale-specific; talk how DITA is applicable to what they're trying to achieve.
Michael; their experience will set their context. What's the prospect of intro and advanced DITA track?
Don; two tracks?
Michael; more likely one day of intro, then a day of advanced.
Kris; none of these conf. have more than one DITA track.
Michael; maybe a certificate program 'DITA combo pack' (intro and advanced).
Amber; I was approached by STC before wrt a DITA session, then they didn't use it.
Michael; if we could get presenters together before conference to schedule talks...
Amber; at InfoDevWorld, we might need a track/workshop before the conference officially starts.
[to be continued next week]
3. Calendar for critical dates to enable DITA 1.3 to be released in 2015
Schedule: July - December 2015
Kris; we're getting close to a vote; this is just a reminder about voting attendance.
4. Comments on the 60-day review
- Incompatible changes in processing-role for reltable and relcell
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201510/msg00004.html (Radu Coravu, 20 October 2014)
Robert; Radu noted that using 1.3 schemas, reltable and relcell had a processing-role of 'resource-only', which doesn't make sense, but that @ has been available since 1.2; Doing it as the default turns off linking for reltable, which is counter-intuitive; turning off linking in a reltable makes reltable usless. The definition of 'processing-role' in the spec doesn't connect it to linking; that has been assumed wrt keyrefs. but it doesn't make sense for reltables. As per the spec, it's doing what we wanted. but most tools are set up to preclude links where @resource-only is on, so there's an unexpected impact.
Kris; I had a call w/ chet ensign as far as making changes. He said we can make non-material changes, and the definition of a 'non-material change is one that 'doesn't add or remove features'
Robert; I'm inclined to call it an error correction.
Eliot; It's very relevant in case of reltables
Robert; and if it's not relevant, let's not set it up by default on reltable and relcallspec.
Kris; if we do this, we currently have in the schedule that we would have received comments in spec. We've built in time for this; it gives us more paperwork to do. We have to make it clear that it enumerates the changes. Robert, is there anything else we need to discuss?
Robert; this does not add or remove a feature, so it's non-material.
Kris; should we re-open an earlier comment, on what we'd add to errata?
Robert; the only thing scheduled for errata so far is fixing text.
Kris; we should re-open the comment from makita
- Typos in 18.104.22.168.2
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201510/msg00001.html (Toshihiko Makita, 14 October 2015)
Kris; let's call this a typo and fix it;
Robert; I'll take an action item to respond to this comment; reopen and say 'we will fix this'; the only action needed is to acknowledge it. I'll do that and also do the processing role one from Radu.
- Multiple elements in general task
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201510/msg00002.html (Corinne Brzeski, 14 Ocotber 2015)
Eliot; her analysis is correct; steps aren't repeating; the spec was wrong in 1.2 and it's still wrong in 1.3.
Kris; is it the case that we can make a change to the spec at this point?
Michael; I thought we had allowed multiple steps, but we don't
Robert; I thought the same thing
Eliot; it might be better to allow them, but we don't have a mandate to do that, it would be a 'material change'.
Kris; I think we even had this in our fix list; we need to make sure we fix spec problems; we won't let this happen again.
ActionItem: Kris will look up the history of this issue and why it didn't happen; we need to have clarity for fixing these.
Kris; will take responsibility for fixing first fix to spec. Robert will take resposibility for mathml.
Do we know what needs to change to grammar files for reltable/relcell
Robert; we don't want to break something else in the fix.
Kris; maybe Radu could test our fix...
Eliot will fix the grammar files for reltable/relcell @processing-only
Kris will fix the 'steps' topic in the spec.
Robert fix mathml and reltable topics in the spec.
Eliot will look at implications of the reltable/relcel fix on the reltable topic in the spec.
5. Continuing item: DITA TC Committee Note: "Why are there three editions of DITA 1.3?"
Update on progress
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201510/msg00060.html (20 October 2015)
DITAweb review open
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201510/msg00072.html (Eberlein, 27 October 2015)
Kris; thanks to people who made comments on the update. I've responded to all but 2 comments; pertaining to topic on 'Growth of DITA', with tables. Tom had suggested graphics to replace the tables; that's all that's left. In responose to DITAWeb comments on 'What's in it' section, I changed how we refer to 'map' and 'topic' to basetopic/basemap, amd added 'topic' and 'map' to technical content section. I don't want dto do a new web review, please just look at the new PDF and send feedback. I'd like to do this before tcWorld. Any thoughts on new stuff?
Dave; I read it thru, no comments.
Eric; I read it and added a small comment.
[TC members who want to review this will do it immediately and send feedback]
close at 11:53
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]