dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 11 July 2017 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 07:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Kris will start querying people on ETAs on 2.0 techcomm-related proposals.
2. Bob will have something done on sty;e sheets by July 25
3. Kris will add vote for stage #2 proposals 15 and 17 to agenda for July 18
4. Kris, Nancy, Keith, Carsten, Stan, Scott will provide data for Tom on fastpath usage
5. Keith will talk to ARM Ixiasoft rep to see what ARM is doing that makes them think they need this.
6. Robert will open a card for removal of xtrx/xtrf
7. Kris will respond to Forder comment, saying 'got your mail, considering things, currently don't want to introduce new @s to contain text strings, in 2.0 will be able to spec @s, and you shoud be able to use that feature to do what you want'.
8. Carlos will organize a call to discuss grammar and specialization rules (and delivery of DTD/RNG/XSD formats) for LwD, including Kris, Robert, Mark, Alan, Bill Byrnes, Eliot
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 11 July 2017
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Eric Sirois
2. Approve minutes from business meeting on 27 June 2017:
[June 27 minutes posted too late for review]
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
13 June 2017:
LwDITA subcommittee:
Consider content model for dd element -- Should it contain dl? simpletable? (COMPLETED)
20 June 2017
- LwDITA subcommittee
Clarify intent of -- or remove -- ADD FILTERING ATTRIBUTES section from map.dtd (now lw-map.dtd)
Carlos; talked about it; Michael said he would draft a sentence to put in; will wait a bit for his version, but will draft our own if necessary.
Kris: Work with Carlos and Chris to determine best way to move forward with issue of MDITA and HDITA validation
[no update]
- Kris: Convene working group (Eliot, Carlos, Chris, Keith) to create committee note about "Multimedia domain for DITA 1.3"
[no update]
27 June 2017
- Alan: Awaiting minutes from 27 June 2017
5. Subcommittee report: Technical Communication SC (Bob Thomas)
Bob; SC met yesterday; we discussed content model of wintitle being too strict; Scott had an action item on usage of variable text.
Kris; that item isn't on agenda yet, since it's still too volatile; from what I remember, wintitle was from DITA 1.0 and was IBM's usage.
Robert; wrt keyword vs ph; the original intention was for little bits of content to be 'keyword', while content that might exapand would be 'ph'. But everything was a bit ad hoc in deciding whether to specialize from keyword or ph. In 1.2, there was a proposal to allow keyword to nest; but it was very problematic because of ripple effects. Then, we created 'text' to be a reusable element and specifically made it non-linking; but I don't recall any explicit reason to not include keyref in it.
Eliot; I think we need to keep that aspect
[back to bob]
Bob; the SC discussion of wintitle will resume at next SC meeting, but we have a use case problem to solve, so it will be coming back. Scott has been working on it. Also, there's been no movement on troubleshooting proposal.
Questions? [none]
Kris; I will start querying people on ETAs on 2.0 techcomm-related proposals.
***ActionItem; Kris; will start querying people on ETAs on 2.0 techcomm-related proposals.
6. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Style sheets: Progress?
Bob; there's been just a little bit of progress a couple of weeks ago, but nothing since then; I'll work on them this week; but will commit to making progress before I come back
Kris; good; please work on them; we're not able to print with 1.8.5
New items:
None
***ActionItem; Bob will have something done on sty;en sheets by July 25
7. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals:
- #15: Loosen specialization rules (Nitchie, 8 June 2017)
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/60964/Issue15-LoosenSpecializationRules.html
Chris; the aim for this is to be able to add @s to specific elements rather than globally
Kris; will queue up 15 for vote enet week
- #17: Make outputclass universal (Anderson, 12 June 2017)
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/60973/Issue17-universalOutputclass.html
Robert; originally, outputclass was only put in for HTML output, but it's become clear it's needed globally, so this is a straightforward proposal to add @outputclass to every element that doesn't have it, except for the actual 'dita' element, which can't be specialized.
Carlos; this makes a lot of sense.
Robert; this partly came out of LwD trying to use outputclass for pseudo-specialization, but not every element had it
Kris; will queue up 17 for vote enet week
***ActionItem; Kris will add vote for 15 and 17 to agenda for July 18
8. DITA 2.0: Review of stage one (in progress) cards
- Project page at the GitHub repo: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/projects/2
o Deprecate type="fastpath" attribute value for note elements (Magliery)
Tom; no progress so far, still interested, but haven't looked into it. I thought I'd do a survey on the other @type values, then in a later discussion, I got the impression that only fastpath was in question, but I'd like to hear opinions on that.
[none given]
So, what is next step for this?
Kris; I think we have many more stage 1 cards than this, but thought this was a good time to bring this up.
Keith; I can look at the ixiasoft doc set to see if these assertions (that fastpath isn't used) are correct.
Tom; that would be good; I'd like to use more data than I have.
Stan; also, we could just use surveymonkey to ask the list.
***ActionItem; Kris;, Nancy, Keith, Carsten, Stan, Scott will provide data for Tom;
o FROM BACKLOG: Can this easily be done in RNG? Should be part of broad DTD / RNG / XSD changes?
Allowing Domains to Extend Specific Elements
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00017.html (Kimber, 6 June 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00018.html (Nitchie, 6 June 2017)
9. 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)
Kris; this is wrt removal of @xtrc and @xtrf in 2.0; btw, do we have 'removal of strc and strf' as one of our official proposals?
Robert; not yet, we talked about it, but many people are using those @s for other purposes, and so if we remove them they'll have problems. We probably have have 30 diff users with 30 diff usages; what to do ?
Kris; I think we should open a card for removing @strc and @strf, but I'm hearing you're uncomfortable about removing them; I don't like the idea of @title on relrow. but I'm wary of how to respond to this comment. I certainly don't understand needing titles for relrow.
Alan; won't the new looser @ specialization mechanism mitigate the problem, or do we have people who won't specialize for any reason?
Robert; yes, but that doesn't mean we should indulge them, and maybe we should expect them to adapt to changes.
Alan; I don;t understand his use case.
Bob; neither do I.
Kris; what CMS is he using?
Keith; Ixiasoft, I think;
***ActionItem; Keith will talk to ARM Ixiasoft rep to see what ARM is doing that makes them think they need this.
***ActionItem; Robert will open a card for removal of xtrx/xtrf
***ActionItem; Kris will respond to Forder comment, saying 'got your mail, considering things, currently don't want to introduce new @s to contain text strings, in 2.0 will be able to spec @s, and you shoud be able to use that feature to do what you want'.
10. 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)
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)
Review comments: Coding requirements for LwDITA
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00035.html (Nitchie, 9 June 2017)
Chris; my main question was 'are there coding requirements for LwD?' There should be.
Kris; we came to the same conclusion; that there should be grammar rules.
Chris; we were all trying to come up with a solution to the problem of template-based specialization; but then that was removed from the design, But if LwD is extensible, it needs rules for extending it. So the LwD spec needs to have soemthing to say about specialization and how grammar files are constructed
Robert; but note that those are 2 diff things
1. how specialization should work
2. how grammar files should be constructed
Kris; we've already determined that LwD grammar files will be diff from regular DITA.
Robert; but to be DITA, specialization has to work the same way, so we need to say how grammar files are constructed, and how specialization works.
Carlos; we have a section on specialization, but it was going to be about the template-based model. Yesterday we started talking about how to specialize without using that model; you use same methods as for regular DITA, but using LwD as your base.
Chris; so, will LwD have full class hierarchies, or not?
Carlos; e.g. multimedia, that will be built into base LwD DTDs, so those will have to include multimedia, based on object,as part of their base.
Chris; I don't mind if we have diff grammar rules, e.g. modular vs monolithic DTD files, that would be OK.
Carlos, that's basically what we're talking about.
Kris; my question is 'how much of this do we need to have hashed out before we can give the TC's approval to the design and put out the CN?'
Carlos; we need to see how many XDITA users are actually going to try specialization. We need to write something in the CN that is fairly generic but gives some ideas of what we want to do, and then get more specific in the spec.
Kris; what do we need for TC to vote 'yes' on LwD? And what do we need to have in the CN? We expect that XDITA can be specializced, it needs to follow rules for DITA specialization, but methods for constructing grammar files can be looser than DITA 1.3 spec.
Tom; I'm comfortable with that, as long as its clear that an LwD instance is also a DITA instance.
Robert; I'm OK as well. one issue I've seen is that the grammar files have grown haphazardly, We've always known they wouldn't follow DITA coding conventions,t but they must have coding conventions of their own.
Kris; my preference is that those coding conventions be in place before we send out the CN. I think that work will have to be driven by the TC rather than the SC.
Robert; there need to be patterns, at least for internal consistency; can't be random, the way it is now.
Kris; and that work needs to be done before the CN goes out
Carlos; if we can have a call outside of TC call and make some rules, I can try to implement them.
volunteers, Kris, Robert, Carlos, Mark, Alan, Bill Byrnes, Eliot
Kris; who is willing to ull the call together?
Carlos; I can do that
***ActionItem; Carlos will organize a call to discuss grammar and specialization rules (and delivery of DTD/RNG/XSD formats) for LwD, including Kris, Robert, Mark, Alan, Bill Byrnes, Eliot
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201706/msg00036.html (Eberlein, 10 June 2017)
[same as above item, just discussed]
Kris; have we ever decided whether we're distributing all 3 grammars, or leaving out either RNG or XSD?
Eliot; web editors will want XSD, and RNG is normative, and everyone else wants DTDs, so I'mnot sure how we could leave out any...
Alan; if we're saying LwD doesn't follow regular rules, do we have to support RNG?
Kris; let's punt this question over to the small LwD grammar group that's about to be led by Carlos.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]