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 27 June 2017 uploaded

Submitter's message
[My apologies; I thought I'd mailed these out over a week ago, when I completed them.]

1. ActionItem: Alan will summarize discussion on LwD content model for dd, and mail summary to TC members.

Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 27 June 2017
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:

1. Roll call
Regrets: Dawn Stevens, Carsten Brennecke, Maria Essig

2. Approve minutes from business meeting on 20 June 2017:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00093.html (Nancy Harrison, posted 21 June 2017)
moved by Kris, 2nded by Alan, approved by TC

3. Announcements:
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:
Consider content model for dd element -- Should it contain dl? simpletable?
- Kris; someone from LwD SC, please summarize and email to list
- Alan; I can do that
ActionItem: Alan will summarize discussion on LwD content model for dd, and mail summary to TC members.
20 June 2017
o LwDITA subcommittee
- Fix error in entity https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00040.html
- Change grammar file names so that they are prefixed with "lw-"
- Clarify intent of -- or remove -- ADD FILTERING ATTRIBUTES section from map.dtd (now lw-map.dtd)
- Redesign multimedia domain to remove attributes not present in DITA 1.3
- Carlos; the first 2 items are done, the 3rd was discussed yesterday, we'll put disclaimers in the CN about this.
- Kris; all that's neded is a comment in the file; we'll leave that open for now
o Bob: Update SVN with revised subcommittee governance document
- Kris; this is done
o Kris: Reply to Stefan Eike on dita-comment list (COMPLETED)
o Kris: Request template for new committee note: "Multimedia domain for DITA 1.3" (COMPLETED)
o Kris: Work with Carlos and Chris to determine best way to move forward with issue of MDITA and HDITA validation
[hold till next meeting]
o Kris: Convene working group (Eliot, Carlos, Chris, Keith) to create committee note about "Multimedia domain for DITA 1.3"

5. Lightweight DITA proposal
Committee note draft: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/60914/LwDITA-v1.0-cn01-wd17.pdf
DTDs: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/60915/org.oasis.xdita.zip
Overview of work for the TC: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00015.html (Eberlein, 6 June 2017)
Browsable content models: https://td-demo.titaniasoftware.com/portals/ui/lwdita-dtd/ (Courtesy of Chris Nitchie)
o Review comments: DTDs
- General questions (On hold for general housekeeping that will happen later)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00043.html (Eberlein, 11 June 2017)
o Review comments: Chris Nitchie
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00033.html (Nitchie, 9 June 2017)
Chris's e-mail covers several topics:
- Validation of HDITA and MDITA
[see above under 'Action Items' for 20 June]
- Values for the custom data attributes
- Chris; on draft DN page 13, an inaccurate statement about keyref availability. Markdown, in addition to allowing pre-formeatted content, allows other methods, but those are not in document, why not?
- Carlos; because we were debating which flavor of Markdown to support, we will put it back in
- Presence of object specializations without object
- Chris; this allows for @data-hd-class. why @data-hd-class rather than using of just @class?
- Alan; Didn't we change that?
- Carlos; that was a feature Michael ilked about HTML5 spec, These are not necessarily about your content; we had many discusions about it and decided to create our own HTML5 elements, then decided to stick with the original idea of @data-hd-class. I haven't seen them in use much. at one point HDITA had specializationss for C/T/R.
- Chris; I think data @s are great; but for @class, I think LwD is using their specialized @data-hd-class for the same purposes that actual @class is used.
- Robert; when John Hunt was working with a LwD-like thing, he came up with @hd-class, but the problem was that in HTML5, @class is used for all kinds of preentation stuff, an he worried that it would be confused.
- Chris; but @data-hd-class isn't 'like the real DITA @class, but used in HTML5 fashion', so it might as well use the regular HTML5 @class.
- Carlos; in fact, that only exists in the examples, it's not in the grammar, so I'll remove it.
- Kris; so this is really two points;
1) wrt naming question,
2) about @data-hd-class.
- Chris; yes, we've discussed the second one first. For 1), I'm not fond of 'hd' as a namespace, so if we need one, I don't like the name 'hd.'
- Kris; I think, if we need one, either 'data-', or 'lwd-' would be more useful
- Robert; I don't like 'data'
- Chris; but I don't think there's a real need for a namespace...
- Robert; I agree, if anyone is using a conref @, they probably stole it from regular DITA.
- Carlos, right now we have @props, @keyref, @conref, @type, and @importance
- Kris; I support removing the 'hd'
- Chris; I agree, there's only a very small chance of overlapping naming. I've never namespaced data @s...
- Alan, without namespacing, how would an HDITA doc manifest itself as HDITA?
- Carlos, it will just have @type rather than @hd-type
- Kris; so shall we just move that 'hd-' be removed?
[this suggestion was moved by Kris, 2nded by Chris, approved by TC]
***Kris; when we add material to CN, we'll include that although object is used as a specialization base, it's not available in LwD as itself.

- issues with needing an element to put text into
- Carlos; my students hate this too; in DITA and in HTML5, you can do lists without a holder, but not in LwD.
- Kris; maybe when we send out Lwd as a beta, we can get feedback on this item.
- Chris; I think it's about less ambiguity for authors.
- Robert; and even more, for implementors. LwD ethos is about removing unnecessary choices.
- -Kris; and for simplification of stylesheets
- Chris; for myself, when I weigh benefits vs costs, I disagree, but I won't push it.
- Robert; in the target use case, in a lightweight editor, it's presented in a way that makes sense.

- xref element and type attribute
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00045.html (Anderson, 12 June 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00051.html (Kimber, 13 June 2017)
- Chris; we're looking at getting rid of the @type for xref at 2.0; I'm coming at this from the Arbortext Styler, it's not as easy as with XSLT. It's a lot easier to do styling on something nearby, and almost impossible to look up things in other documents. But it is possible to do the lookup, so I'm OK with this. Will footnotes always be by reference?
- Kris; yes.
- Chris; Will there be somethoing to identify footnote links? It's kind of a special case. But this is a vague discomfort, rather than a strong objection.
- Carlos; We created a wrapper for 'fn', and we need to create a unique link for processing it.
- Robert; putting footnotes in a group at the end is nice, but it won't require a new fn element; in fact, it reduces the case. Chris, maybe we should hold off on this until you've seen the fn update, a container at the end of topic to hold footnotes, so we can take it out of all other locations in the body.
- Chris; I like that; I have the same issues as with the multimedia elements - adding useful new elements to LwD when they're not in 1.3, but..
- Robert; yes, and this won't be in 2.0.
- Kris; or perhaps we should consider it for 2.0...
- Robert; I'm not sure; even if we added it, it might not solve things.
- Chris; but LwD is meant to be 100% compatible with DITA.
- Robert; but it's not a subset, it follows the rules, that's how we're using the word.
- Kris; we'll have to be very precise about how we talk about compatibility and interoperabilty.
- Chris, but this breaks one of our arguments...
- Robert; our first argument - that you can drop an LwD file into a DITA map, and it will work - will still be true. The second argument - that you could just change the doctype in a doc shell - hasn't been true since LwD added the multimedia domain.
- Chris; one possibility would be to adopt LwD now, and you can mnigrate to DITA later, but it's not a straightforward migration.
- Kris; Let's move forward, this will come up again and again.

Corrections to committee note draft
Review comments: Use of domains in LwDITA
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00053.html (Kimber, 13 June 2017)
- Eliot; if we're going to have domains, they need to be either 1) always in separate modules or 2) never in separate modules
- Kris; so I read your mail to be: 'we're not being consistent'. I think the question is, in the context of LwD, is it more sense to do them inline?
- Eliot; the question is, if DITA TC defines highlight domain as standalone, should Lwd do the same? I think it's more consistent with the LwD approach to -pull all declarations inline. I think so, but I'll leave it up to LwD SC.
- Robert; this might directly be affected by 'what is the LwD SC expecting to ship?' RNG with generated DTD? just DTD? I don't think we know the answer to that question.
- Eliot; I'd prefer to have RNG as a base and generated [single-file] DTD.
- Robert; I suspect they'll both stay modular, and promote j-i-t DTD generation.
- Kris; shall we keep this and discuss it later; it will keep cropping up.

[see agenda - link at top of minutes - for additional issues that were part of this agenda item but not covered on today's call]

6. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Style sheets: Progress?
New items:
Mistake in "Inheritance" section for equation-block
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00019.html (Anderson, 6 June 2017)
Error in example of strict task
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00117.html (David Hollis, 26 June 2017)
- Kris; anyone have concerns with just fixing above 2 new items?
[no comments]
- Kris; so we've fixed these and checked them in.

7. New DITA 2.0 stage one proposals
Attribute 'title' for relrows
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201611/msg00000.html (Robin Forder, 2 November 2016)
[no discussion of this]

8. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals:
#15: Loosen specialization rules (Chris Nitchie, 8 June 2017)
[no discussion of this]
#17: Make outputclass universal (Anderson, 12 June 2017)
[no discussion of this]
#27 Multimedia domain (Nitchie, 27 June 2017)
- Chris reviewed his proposal. some things don't map neatly onto 'param', but need some review by folks who know multimedia in HTML5. currently, LwD doesn't allow for things that make 'track' usable. it may not be lightweight enough to go into LwD. An issue from specializing this from 'object', once you create an 'audio' element, you can put other stuff inside that. We can do that inside object, except for reusing desc, so I've created a fallback version of desc. so you can have fallback or desc, but not both. We have options for that, we could make desc '8' (0 or more) instead of '?' (0 or 1), that is called out in the proposal, and we can discuss in a future meeting.
- Robert; maybe we could use xml:lang to specify a language for a track. that's a picky detail.
- Carlos; we were thinking about xml:lang being the language of a track, so it makes sense.
- Kris; do you need help from other TC members at this point, collaboration, or use cases?
- Carlos; we want this proposal to feed into the LwD CN.
- Chris; this should be in both LwD and 2.0. I want to 1) make sure folks understand and agree on how we deal with fallback, and 2) which config @s that are currently in HTML5 and missing in LwD should have first order param specializations in our domain.
- Carlos; we should have a call to work on this; I can help with this.
[to be continued]

12 noon ET close

-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 27 June 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: 2017-07-11 07:51:02

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