| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - Meeting Minutes 22 Aug 2017 uploaded
- From: Tom Magliery<email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Minutes from Tuesday's meeting below.
NOTE: In addition to the action items sent to the list by Kris earlier, there was a pseudo-action item for Robert to update the Stage One proposals on github to include the proposal for removing @xtrc and @xtrf.
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 22 August 2017
Recorded by Tom Magliery
link to agenda for this meeting:
Meeting opened: 8am Pacific time
1. Roll call
Regrets: Maria Essig, Dick Hamilton, Nancy Harrison
Attendance: Robert Anderson, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kristen Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Mark Giffin, Alan Houser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Bob Thomas
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201708/msg00026.html (Nancy Harrison, posted Wed, 16 Aug 2017 20:25:14 -0700 (PDT))
Motion to approve: Kris
4. Action items review
8 August 2017
Kris: Request GitHub repo for L & T subcommittee (waiting on info from subcommittee)
Kris, Nancy, Stan, Tom: Test new PDF style sheets (COMPLETED by Kris)
Alan: Send minutes from LwDITA DTD call to the TC list (COMPLETED just before this meeting)
15 August 2017:
Kris: Open stage one card for rework of footnote design (COMPLETED)
Bob: Resolve style sheet issues uncovered by Kris
Multimedia domain group: Assess whether LwDITA committee note can move ahead at this time
(Kris to help) Add caveat to committee note about inability to validate HDITA and MDITA, and its implications
Develop schedule for committee note
ACTION for Kris: make a troubleshooting topic about using a proper DITAVAL with the publishing style sheets
5. Official OASIS GitHub repositories for subcommittees
Any common best practices?
Kris: Robert and I have discussed briefly. One idea: Use of master branch for latest, released code. Also: Spec editors as additional committers?
Eliot: this one seems reasonable
ACTION: Carlos and Bob: add Robert and Kris as committers to subcommittee github repos
Kris: Carlos: it's time for you to move your DTDs .. keep your official OASIS repo for official spec stuff (grammar, spec), use OASIS open one for more experimental stuff, and collab with non OASIS members
6. Specification style sheets
Results from testing?
7. E-mail on dita-comment list
7a. Possible improvement for DITA 2.0
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00000.html (Radu Coravu, 18 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00001.html (Anderson, 18 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00003.html (Radu Coravu, 18 July 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201707/msg00004.html (Eberlein, 18 July 2017)
Content is in spec; do we need an additional example?
Robert: Summary of issue: Information was missing in 1.2 but added in 1.3.
Question from Kris: do we need to make it more evident in the spec, possibly add an example?
Kris: We do also need a fix in the toolkit
Robert: Yes, I need to get back to that
Kris: Question to the TC: how aware are we of this? And would an example help?
Eliot: an example would certainly help because it's a subtle issue
Kris: who on the call was aware?
Chris: I'm not surprised by it, it might be what I would have assumed
Robert: I'm not surprised by that, I noticed it was broken in 1.2, and I explicitly remember fixing it. Would be surprised if anyone who had not worked directly with this spec topic or markup would have noticed it
Kris: I actually was one of the people with the use case, and yet I had forgotten it. I think it would be helpful to do an example. Would someone volunteer?
Scott: We actually are using this method although I don't think we had run into this issue with the alt text ... but I could certainly try to work up an example.
ACTION: Scott to do that
7b. Auto-layout for tables
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201708/msg00000.html (George Bina, 21 August 2017)
Eliot: I'm inclined to say we should not specify rendering
Robert: The spec has moved away from specifying default renderings
Kris: That's my take as well; any objections to a response to George like this?
ACTION: Eliot to respond that the TC discussed this, and give our conclusion
8. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Errata 02: Error in subjectScheme example
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201708/msg00035.html (Eberlein, 21 August 2017)
Kris: Are there any objections to fixing this in errata?
ACTION: Kris to fix this in errata
9. Report from small group on multimedia domain
Minutes: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201708/msg00036.html (Eberlein, 21 August 2017)
Chris: Initial version of the 2.0 multimedia (MM) proposal had a couple of questions about which way we would do things, so a small group met to discuss these issues. I put out a new update to the proposal that removed these ambiguities.
Specific decision points:
1. In HTML5 there are several config attrs, trying to decide which ones to include as toplevel param specifications for multimedia element. Broke them down as delivery type concerns (not authoring), so we would not include those, but other ones that authors are concerned about would be included.
2. Presence or absence of how fallback markup should work. In practice in HTML contents of a MM element wind up being fallback markup in most cases. Concern about how to include it and be compatible with 1.3. Decided that in 1.3 there will be no fallback. In 2.0 we will add fallback as a child of object alongside the desc element.
3. LWDITA followed HTML element names, but they are fairly generic. We decided to "namespace" the configuration elements with a prefix of media- or video-.
4. Thought of some people/organizations we want to run this proposal past in the market.
Kris: this group had an action item to decide whether the LwDITA subcommittee should move ahead with the About LwDITA committee note at this time, or whether they would have a dependency on the MM committee note
Chris: my feeling is that the 1.3 MM domain should come at least at the same time (no later than) LwDITA
Robert: the MM *spec* should come out before the LwDITA spec, but the committee notes are serving different purposes. It's ok for the LwDITA note to come out first because it's more about "here's what we are thinking about doing, although it could change"
10. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals: Discussion and queuing up for vote
#27: Multimedia domain
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/61409/Issue27-multimedia.html (Nitchie, 17 August 2017)
Chris: main idea is to introduce audio/video elements similar to HTML5.
The main difference is we use elements instead of attributes for some things.
We also introduced a new fallback element, which is needed for completeness
This proposal borrowed liberally from HTML5 and LwDITA and Eliot's D4P
Bob: Are you going to take advantage of the loosening of attrs in 2.0?
Chris: No, because we're going to make this compatible with 1.3
[Some discussion of alternative ways to handle @type, general agreement that this was the best approach]
11. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals: Status
Kris: Can we get some estimates on when we will see proposals?
#8 Chris -- no estimate, hung up on some design details
#21 Eliot -- October 1st
#34 Eliot -- October 1st
#33 Eliot -- October 1st
#16 Kris -- deferring for now
#36 Kris -- September 19th
#18 Robert -- September 30th
#13 Bob -- September 19th
12. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals
12a. Remove @xtrc and @xtrf
Kris: do we need more discussion on this or can we move this to in-progress?
Robert: We've discussed this several times
Kris: Let's consider this in-progress, with absence from github as an oversight
Robert: I will update this
12b. Rework footnote design
Kris: This discussion was sparked by LwDITA. Biggest refinement is to have a convenience element fnref that would point to fn; possibly a specialized section for placement of footnotes. Floor is open for general discussion of footnote redesign.
Robert: The biggest pain point both in implementing footnotes and in teaching authors how to use them is the fact that we have two very different models -- direct and use-by-ref. This regularly leads to confusion. I would like to see 2.0 picking one, and preferably the reference one.
Chris: Who would be the owner of this? It's not that they don't work, it's just that they're a little confusing
Kris: The spec content is dreadful, too (difficult for implementors and users to understand)
Kris: We've heard lots of anecdotal problems
Carlos: In LwDITA we sent out a survey on the elements they needed; should we do something like that about people's use of footnote?
Scott: That couldn't hurt
Kris: there might be less labor-intensive ways to do it
Robert: we might want to hold off until (a) someone owns it or (b) we have more features to ask about
Kris: we could ask on dita-users or in listening sessions
Robert: one (tepid) endorsement of the current model is that reorganizing the spec as we plan to do for 2.0 might help
12 noon ET close
-- Mr. Tom Magliery
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]