OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 24 January 2017 uploaded


Submitter's message
ActionItem;
- if there's an item in a backlog page in the Github 2.0 repository that you want to bring forward, or if you have an issue with a backlog, contact TC.


=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 24 January 2017
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas


Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Carsten Brennecke, Tom Magliery, Scott Hudson


2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00034.html (Nancy Harrison, 10 January 2017)
Kris moved to accept, seconded by Dawn, approved by TC.


3. Announcements:
New TC members: None
OASIS ballot on Business Document Naming and Design Rules V1.0 passed
Kris: will be out for a couple of weeks sometime in spring; Tom nd Nancy will handle TC in her absence.


4. Action items
[see agenda, none covered during meeting]


5. Continuing item: Git/GitHub repos for TC work
Spec repo: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita
"Official" OASIS repository; Kris and Robert are committers
Style sheet repo: https://github.com/oasis-open/dita-stylesheets
OASIS-Open repository; Bob and Kris are committers
Kris; we now have 2 repos set up, one for spec and one for our style sheets. The one for style sheets is an OASIS open repo, so we can accept contributions from non-OASIS members on our style sheets.


6. New item: Beginning of formal work on DITA 2.0
- Overview of project page at the GitHub repo: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/projects/2
- Process
- Request for all TC members to review the first two columns
Robert; 2.0 Github now set up, have a few different versions of kanban boards to reflect different stages of proposals, including a stage for 'backlog' items. Some of those items have now been entered as 'stage 1' level. The kanban board tracks proposals, not work that's being done on them.
Kris; Robert and I are open to whether we use this kanban board or go back to Trello,
Robert; right, this seems a lot like Trello.
Kris; the benefit of using this (rather than Trello) is that it uses official OASIS tooling. By OASIS rules, we can use non-OASIS only if they have nothing comparable (which is how we had permission to use Trello in 1.3)
Robert; things got lost in the wiki, and this is an advantage over that. On the kanban board, we can turn these note items directly into Github issues, which is how we'll be doing development.
Eliot; I like having it all together in one place, so it has that over Trello.
Mark; I've used it before and I like the way it keeps things together.
Robert; so, for an item, you can create an issue directly
Stan; another plug for this is that it has an API built in, so you can modify it if necessary.
Robert; my hope is that we should be able to keep up to date in real time as we change things in meetings, instead of having to update a wiki page.
Kris; please take a look at the backlog page (random items). We created 'cards' for all backlog items that we've discussed recently.
*** ActionItem; if there's an item in a backlog page you want to bring forward, or if you have an issue with a backlog, contact TC.
- Items for discussion:
Make @outputclass universal
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00054.html (Anderson, 20 January 2017)
Robert; this is leftover; the outputclass @ should be available everywhere, because it isn't always just used for HTML (as was originally expected). It was only added to elements that would make HTML content, so it was left off of all metadata elements; that's become an issue.
Deb; what about creating a new universal @ that is named to suggest what we want to do with it?
Robert; it would end up doing what people use @outputclass for, so we'd end up with 2 @s doing the same thing.
Eliot; I was thinking along the same lines as Deb, but I also share Robert's concerns about having 2 similar @s.
Robert; even if we do a separate @ for sub-classing, we still need to make @outputclass universal.
Kris; 2.0 gives us the ability to break backwards compatibility, but we don't have a blank slate, we've promised to minimize migration issues.
Don; I've observed that DocBook uses 'role' for our kind of sub-class. Should we use 'role' for that?
Kris; we already have a 'role' @, so we can't.
Robert; I'm hopeful that in 2.0 we can use @s so that if they mean one thing for one element, they mean the same thing in every element. I would support another @ for sub-classing, but I won't take that on as a project myself.
Kris; let's stick to the narrow proposal of 'make outputclass universal', does anyone have any concerns? I'll go on record as supporting it.
Bob; I support it also.
Don; likewise
Robert; looking at the actual spec definition of @outputclass, my change wouldn't change anything it's already being used for.
Don; I'm just thinking about possible objections.
Robert; it won't change any usage that's already being done, just give additional options; I don't think there's a concern that has to be addressed.
Robert; any objection to my moving forward on a stage 2 proposal?
Kris; as a process issue, do we ned to wait a week? We didn't do that for stage 1 proposals in 1.3, only for stage 2 and 3.
Robert; I'll edit this so that anything going into stage 2 or 3 has a namne assigned to it, so we know who owns it.
Kris; Robert and I think we can use the proposal process as it existed in 1.3, with some tweaks for migrations. Any wolunteers to work with us?
[nancy wolunteered]


7. New item: Lightweight DITA and template-based specialization
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00041.html (Eberlein, 19 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00043.html (Evia, 19 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00044.html (Hanna, 19 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00046.html (Kimber, 19 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00047.html (Anderson, 19 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00056.html (Priestley, 21 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00058.html (Eberlein, 23 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00061.html (Kimber, 23 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00062.html (Priestley, 23 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00065.html (Kimber, 23 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00066.html (Priestley, 23 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00067.html (Kimber, 23 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00068.html (Priestley, 23 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00070.html (Kimber, 23 January 2017)
Kris; I'd like to follow the email chain, or does someone want to talk about their points?
Carlos; it's a real concern. no one has articulated how the specialization will be applied to HDITA and MDITA. I was reading the TOC of our proposal; it presents a rationale for letting people write in either format. But how would a specialized template based on these templates look? It would look very ugly
Kris; does the SC want to go to specialized versions in MDITA and HDITA? You probably do want to go there.
Carlos; so maybe my point is that we need to push for a way that the specialization mechanism is released by the TC as the way to specialize LwD.
Chris; the template-based specialization mechanism has nothing in it that particularly pertains to LwD. So I'm not sure why it would be part of LwD. There's very little in it that couldn't be done with a namespace or something like that. It's a great tool, but I don't think it makes sense as part of a standard.
Kris; We never suggested that the tool be part of the standard, The question was whether we would add elements/@s to standard to enable this tool.
Robert; I had a short call with Michael; the standard itself is meant to ensure interchange, and I didn't see how it helped that; Michael thinks it's about interchange of models rather than interchange of content. But that makes me uncomfortable.
Nancy; what's interchange of models?
Robert; if I lay out my spec model using LwD, I can push a button and I get an HTML template for my specialization.
Nancy; but HTML doesn't have a model for spec.
Carlos; it ends up looking very complicated...
Robert; all of this makes it very hard to justify in my mind. we all think a simpler approach would be great, but we have no examples of what it does.
Eliot; Michael's point is that if we have these methods, people will use them. But I think that it's defining and implementing the method that will make it (and LwD) more likely to be used. Just defining it in a standard won't make people use it. That mechanism needs to exist, but it doesn't need to be part of the standard. And it's only one method out of many possible ones. We shouldn't waste any effort on trying to decide on whether it should be in the standard.
Robert; this in theory ould be its own companion standard; interchange of content and models probably call for 2 different standards. If the whole point is to seem lightweight, the effort of trying to describe the models in the standard would make it seem less lightweight, not more.
Bob; if using the template becomes more complex than using RNG, then I don't see a good reason for it...
Carlos; but I thought we already agreed that the specialization method was outside of the CN, but then Michael changed his stance about that.
Kris; this is some confusion about the CN; right noe I mean that to be directed at the TC, not the wider community. This is the opportunity for the TC to express concerns about template-based specialization. A big problem is that Michael is now no longer a member of the TC, so we can't rely on his work effort, so I don't know how to resolve that. We could ask him...
Mark; we are meeting with Michael and Tim Grantham on 'why template-based specialization for LwD?' So it should cover a bunch of this stuff.
Robert; also, specialization in LwD is not the same as template-based spec in LwD, so you can keep specializing in LwD (if you're in XDITA) if you want.
Mark; the template-based spec is really a PR thing,
Kris; and that's germane to people's concerns with it; we don't put marketing into the spec.
Mark; I see this as the future of DITA, massive amounts of data moving out of DITA to markdown, so that's how I see it.
Kris; any more opinions on where we want to go with this?
Chris; we need to invite Michael to a TC meeting to hear from him.
[many agreements]
Kris; a presentation or a discussion?
[most folks wanted a discussion, so people can raise concerns and he will answer in real-time.]
Kris; I'll try to arrange it for next week.




12 noon ET close


-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 24 January 2017

No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

Submitter: Ms. Nancy Harrison
Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC
Folder: Meeting Notes
Date submitted: 2017-01-30 00:18:14



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]