Thanks for getting these out so quickly! A few changes and
additions, see below. Noted in red.
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 6/21/2017 5:51 AM, Nancy Harrison
<kje>I think you missed a few action items. Here's what I put
up when I built the starting point for next week's meeting after the
1. all TC members who haven't yet done so will send comments, or a
note that they have no add'l comments to add to the ones already
received, to TC by next week's meeting
2. Bob will upload latest SC governance document changes to SVN
and check them in
3. Kris will reply on dita-comment list to Stefan Eike's question
about translating '@processing-role="resource-only"' content
Bob; include-domains should have 'topic' in front of hi-d.
Robert; yes, it should match what we're using in full DITA.
4. LwD SC should make following change in grammer files and any
doc; include-domains for highlighting domain hould have 'topic' in
front of hi-d
5. LwD SC will have grammar files prefixed with lw-
6. Kris will send a request to OASIS for a template for the CN to
introduce a multimedia domain in DITA 1.3
- LwDITA subcommittee
- Bob: Update SVN with revised subcommittee governance document
- Kris: Reply to Stefan Eike on dita-comment list (COMPLETED)
- Kris: Request template for new committee note: "Multimedia
domain for DITA 1.3" (COMPLETED)
- Kris: Work with Carlos and Chris to determine best way to move
forward with issue of MDITA and HDITA validation
- Kris: Convene working group (Eliot, Carlos, Chris, Keith) to
create committee note about "Multimedia domain for DITA 1.3"
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 20 June 2017
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
1. Roll call
Regrets: Dick Hamilton, Stan Doherty
2. Approve minutes from business meeting on 30 May 2017:
(Tom Magliery, posted 13 June 2017)
moved by Kris, 2nded by Alan, approved by TC
New TC members: None
4. Action items
6 September 2016
- Kris: Revise subject scheme example topic pulled from errata 01
4 October 2016:
- Tom: Work on aggregated minutes for 2005-2011 (IN PROGRESS)
04 April 2017
- All TC members consider what they want to see on the new
DITA.xml.org site for the DITA TC
06 June 2017:
- All voting members: Review Lightweight DITA package (See TC
review of LwDITA, take 1)
13 June 2017:
- LwDITA subcommittee:
o Correct all the issues mentioned in
(Anderson, 9 June 2017)(COMPLETED)
o Add image, alt, and xref to the content model for ph in map
o Make id attribute optional on map (COMPLETED)
o Add domain constraint token to map (COMPLETED)
o Make localization attributes available on all elements mentioned
o Add format and scope attributes to keydef, image, and data
o Remove filtering attributes from dt and dd (COMPLETED)
o Add outputclass to all elements that have it in DITA 1.3
o Make props available on keydef (COMPLETED)
o Consider content model for dd element -- Should it contain dl?
***ActionItem; all TC members who haven't yet done so will send
comments, or a note that they have no add'l comments to add to the
ones already received, to TC by next week's meeting
5. Subcommittee governance
(Chet Ensign, 24 May 2017)
(Eberlein, 24 May 2017)
(Chet Ensign, 24 May 2017)
(Chet Ensign, 25 May 2017)
(Thomas, 12 June 2017)
Bob; gave overview of current proposal (last mail, above), which
he made in response to Chet's comments on original draft.
Kris moved to approve this as submitted by Bob, 2nded by Maria,
approved by TC
***ActionItem: Bob will upload latest SC governance document
changes to SVN and check them in
6. E-mails to dita-comment list:
(Stefan Eike, 1 June 2017)
(Thomas, 17 June 2017)
(Kimber, 17 June 2017)
Kris went over Stefan Eike's mail, which she'd forwarded to list;
there had been corrections by Bob and Eliot. Resolution is that
Stefan is correct, translation vendor was incorrect. It appears
that the vendor'
s info source
used to be a member of the translation SC, but that SC was no
longer active by the time @processing-role was developed. In any
case, Kris will reply on dita-comment list.
- Tom; checking the spec definition/description of
@processing-role, it notes that topics marked with this @ are not
to be rendered as topics (only conref'd) or in the TOC, but it
doesn't exempt that content from translation.
- Robert; it doesn't imply any default for @translate.
***ActionItem; Kris will reply on dita-comment list
7. Lightweight DITA proposal
- Committee note draft:
- Overview of work for the TC:
(Eberlein, 6 June 2017)
- Browsable content models:
(Courtesy of Chris Nitchie)
- Review comments: DTDs
o Need for header comments (ALREADY ADDRESSED)
(Eberlein, 10 June 2017)
o Error in entity
(Thomas, 10 June 2017)
- Bob; include-domains should have 'topic' in front of hi-d.
- Robert; yes, it should match what we're using in full DITA.
***ActionItem; LwD SC should make that change in grammer files and
any doc; the TC may revisit this when we disuss in detail how LwD
should be handling domains
o File names
(Eberlein, 10 June 2017)
- Kris; we should have a prefix for the files, so they aren't
exactly the same file names as 'real' DITA.
- Robert; I also think it's a good idea.
- Tom; what about 'lw-'
- Carlos, we're using 'xd' what about that?
- Kris; I have another piece of email suggesting 'lw-' rather than
- Robert; I also prefer 'lw' rather than 'xd'
- Kris; the minute we're actually in a DTD/XSD/RNG file, we're
well within real XML, so we don't have to highlight the fact that
***ActionItem: LwD SC will have files prefixed with lw-
o General questions
(Eberlein, 11 June 2017)
- Kris; 'add filtering @' section. what is intent for filter-add
- Carlos and Mark explained that they weren't clear about the
intent; it seemed to be from the time when they were just trying
to match DITA doc shells.
***ActionItem: LwD SC will explain intent of or remove that entity
- Robert; at a more general level, entities can be handy, but we
shouldn't require them for LwD; it gets away from the
'lightweight' model. And in the final product, we don't want
anything lying around to clutter it up, as in DITA 1.0.
- Mark, looking at it, it looks extraneous
- Kris; wrt the 2nd item in that mail; do we need explanations of
this kind of thing for the LwD spec?
- Carlos; I think that can disappear, in context of Robert's
- Alan; I'd agree
- Kris; was SC planning not to have configuration of those
- Mark; not a lot of config to be done.
- Alan; and if people do provide config, would they provide their
own shells and know what they're doing?
- Mark; yes.
- Chris; for a long time, SC was working from the assumption that
there would be template-based specialization; this issue is
probably a relic of that. And we shouldn't do template-based
specialization, but we do need to document how to specialize in
- Kris; and we need to also document configuration. so what
ActionItem do we want to give the SC. just to this item, or more
- Robert; we need to take a fuller look at design as we go along.
some gen'l issues with overall design, e.g. where elements are
ref'd as entities vs element names, some of this falls into
'making it tidy' but now it's not hurting anything.
- Kris; the major big-picture design issues are LwD and
specialization, and LwD and configuration. We can tag this as
housekeeping and go back to it later.
- Nancy; how will we keep it on our radar?
- Kris; i'll keep it on the agenda marked as 'incomplete'
- Review comments: Chris Nitchie
(Nitchie, 9 June 2017)
Chris's e-mail covers several topics:
o Multimedia domain -- Should it be removed from LwDITA or should
the DITA issue a standalone domain?
- Chris; the presence of this domain in LwD, but not in 1.3,
really makes LwD incomnpatible with 1.3, unless you've added that
domain to your shells. In absence of its existence, it's a real
problem. The only way to solve it is for TC to release an official
multimedia domain as a work product.
- Kris; I'm in agreement,
argued around it by saying I accepted the argument that it
could be constructed, but with the way @iframe is used to define
things, you couldn't really do that.
- Eliot; I'm wondering what we mean by 'compatible with' do we
mean all elements are also included, or a conforming
- Robert; people will assume it's a subset, not a conforming
specialization. To be compatible, it would have to be done with
- Chris; and wrt @iframe, I recommend it get redesigned as
something we (DITA TC) could integrate better.
- Kris; so there are a number of possibilities;
1. remove multimedia
2. redesign multimedia so it doesn't require @iframe and convey
thatd ata a different way.
- Kris; TC could release a multimedia specialization.
- Carlos; I'd support that, and would be glad to work with anyone
on that. @iframe came from a discussion with Oxygen. but we can
redesign it without @iframe.
- Kris; are we releasing 1.4, or a CN of 'this is an early
- Robert; don't think we'll do a 1.4 release; I think a CN is a
great way to go. it still will be a point of confusion; but we can
have a 1.3-comp[atible CN with the multimedia domain
- Nancy; it will only berelevant to compatibility with LwD, so it
won't confuse regular DITA users.
- Chris; a good beta test for doc'ing separate modular pieces, as
will be case
- Kris; shall we give AI to LwD to redesign multimedia domain so
it only uses @s available in 1.3, and in addition, write and
release a CN introducing a multimedia domain for DITA 1.3 (Carlos,
Chris, Eliot, and Keith volunteered)
[consensus from TC to release a CN introducing mediaobject domain]
- Kris; we need a working title "Multimedia domain for DITA 1.3'
***ActionItem; Kris will request a template for a CN for this CN.
[continuing Chris's items]
- Chris; I also have some discomfort about the fact that
multimedia elements are specialized from object, but object isn't
- Mark; it's only neeeded if you're going to change the DTD.
- Kris; in any specialization, you can exclude the element the
domain is specialized from.
- Chris; it just seemed odd to me...
- Robert; yes but this can be done, for someone familiar to full
DITA, it seems weird, but for someone new, it seems normal and
less complex that the alternative.
- Chris; LwD is about limiting things, that's the point.
- Mark, if you really need more flexibility, you go to full DITA.
- Kris; the absence of 'object' should be something we talk about
when we explain LwD,
- Carlos; and for people who want to further specialize LwD,
they'll need it.
- Chris; I'm comfortable with that
o Validation of HDITA and MDITA
- Chris; There's a lack of understanding of how to validate these
- Mark; a terrifying area; there is no standard for Markdown;
we're basing on CommonMark, but there's no validation tools for
- Chris; but something can be valid HTML or Markdown without being
valid HDITA or MDITA or Markdown; we always thought 'the toolchain
will handle it', but that's not really sufficient.
- Robert; the problem is that here we're getting a response from a
tool vendor asking 'how do I validate it?'
- Mark; Microsoft is currently working out how to validate their
own particual flavor of Markdown.
- Robert; the difference between having to validate Markdown, and
having some guidance about how to handle something that's not
- Chris; even if it just said 'vendors can do what they want with
- Mark; we need to get MP back on the SC to discuss this.
- Kris; is best thing referring this back to SC, or a meeting
between SC and processor experts?
- Carlos; we should start with SC, get MP's
- Kris; but MP doesn't have expertise in this area, so might be
better to talk with processor people?
- Mark; we have Jang, might be good to takl to him
- Kris; but he's not a developer
- Carlos; then
- Kris; I'll reach out to Carlos and Chris and others to try and
move forward on this;
[continued to next week; remainder of Chris's not-yet-address LwD
review comments/emails left below for context]
o Values for the custom data attributes
o Presence of object specializations without object
o xref element and type attribute
(Anderson, 12 June 2017)
(Kimber, 13 June 2017)
o Corrections to committee note draft
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison