dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 19 September 2017 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Kris will build a new version of 1.2 Errata 02 for OASIS
2. Alan will set up a wiki page to track the schedule.
3. Kris will draft a response to "Radu's post for review by the TC.
4. Alan will create a stage 2 proposal for this work.
5. Nancy will summarize discussion and post to list
6. Robert will send new email to list with this as a new errata item, and reference the spec topic that implies it.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 19 September 2017
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Attendance:
TBD
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Dawn Stevens, Carlos Evia
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201709/msg00013.html (Nancy Harrison, 11 September 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201709/msg00021.html (Eberlein, 19 September 2017)
moved by Kris, 2nd 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)
25 July 2017
Tech comm subcommittee: Consider whether to make proposal to allow steps to nest a stage 1 proposal
8 August 2017
Kris: Request GitHub repo for L & T subcommittee (waiting on info from subcommittee)
- currently waiting for repository
Kris, Nancy, Stan, Tom: Test new PDF style sheets (COMPLETED by Kris and Stan)
15 August 2017:
LwDITA subcommittee:
Develop schedule for committee note (COMPLETED)
05 September 2017:
Bob: Make sure that OASIS cover pages can be appropriately generated when CN is at working draft stage.
Kris: Work all errata 02 changes discussed at TC meeting (COMPLETED)
5. Specification style sheets
Results from testing?
***ActionItem; Kris will build a new version of 1.2 Errata 02 for OASIS
6. Schedule for Lightweight DITA committee note
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201709/msg00022.html (Alan Houser, 19 September 2017)
Alan reviewed the schedule he sent out:
- Sep 21: Committee Note and DTDs available for TC review
- Oct 3: TC completes review (12 days)
- Oct 4-Oct 10: Implement changes and corrections from TC review
- Oct 10: Note available for TC inspection
- Oct 17: TC vote on sending committee note to public review
- Oct 19: Request public review mechanism from OASIS
- Nov 1: Note is available for public review
Carlos will get the CN out by this Thurs. One issue is upcoming TCWorld in Germany in Nov., which will take 5 TC members away from TC meetings during that time.
- Tom; how long is the public review?
- Kris; OASIS public review time is typically 30 days, or we can ask for 60. We can talk about how long to ask for when we send the LwDITA CN out. We really want to try to get this out asap. We'll need to heavily publicize this to the DITA community, so as to get as much feedback as possible. This is different from an ordinary spec; we need to get a lot more real feedback, since this is a new thing and we want to hear what people think of it.
- Kris; Any objections to Alan/Carlos's schedule? if not, I expect you to make time in your calendar for these reviews; I will be 'nagging'.
[no objections to the schedule]
- Kris; We'll move with this schedule.
***ActionItem; Alan will set up a wiki page to track the schedule.
7. E-mail on dita-comment list
Small issues with the DITA standard (Radu Coravu, 15 Sep 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201709/msg00000.html
Direct link to blog post: http://blog.oxygenxml.com/2017/09/small-problems-with-dita-standard.html
Robert's blog post about pesky conref rules:
http://metadita.org/toolkit/peskypeskyconrefrules.html
- Chris; I took this post as validation in one sense, since we're addressing some of these in 2.0.
- Robert; especially in terms of simplifying where there are 2 or more ways of doing things...
- Chris; I think his point on simpletable is on point, but it's probably too much in the way of breaking backwards compatibility to manage.
- Kris; yes, I don't think we can get rid of simpletable... Any thoughts on his @xml:lang item?
- Dick; I don't think that's a good idea; @xml:lang has a particular meaning and shouldn't be overloaded.
- Kris; and xml:lang is an XML @, not a DITA @.
- Nancy; so should we add another?
- Robert; no, we shouldn't add another; it would just be abused.
- Kris; and people don't really want to filter on this, but on a delivery language...; that's what we have @ specialization for.
- Eliot; we were discussing this on the dita-ot list; you can easily use 'locale' to accomplish this today.
- Robert; Jarno opened up an item to explicitly allow someone to list @s that you want to use for filtering.
- Chris; I don't see the harm in this.
- Kris; if you have content where you have a mixture of languages, like safety statements, people are using xml:lang in a standard way, if you add filtering to that, it would really mess things up.
- Robert; well, allowing xml:lang to filter doesn't mandate using xml:lang to filter. But I still don't like the idea of allowing it to be used in filtering.
- Kris; it would grossly overload xml:lang
- Chris; I don't agree with that.
- Eliot; the real problem is that people conflate 'language' (@xml:lang) with @locale, and they're not the same. and most people aren't really aware of that distinction.
- Kris; question - is this topic how we want to spend this meeting, or should we continue this discussion in a future meeting? I'd really like to get through all of Radu's points.
- Nancy, so our response to this point is 'we will be discussing it in future'?
[tabled for now]
- Radu's point #3; filtering a column from a CALS table.
- Kris; when we adopted this table model, we were trying to use the existing CALS model.
- Robert; yes, we didn't want to change CALS, so that editors and processors could use their already-existing CALS modules.
- Alan; and if you filter a column, your column numbers are off.
- Tom; so for a number of Radu's points, the answer is that the problem comes from something bigger than DITA.
Radu's point #4 - conkeyrefs
- Robert; yeah, this is painful, and we can't do anything about it as long as we support DTDs and schemas, it's been a pain point since 1.0.
Radu's point #5 - using a key to refer directly to a subtopic element
- Kris; we ruled this out in 1.2 as being too complex.
- Robert; also, allowing it would break a basic DITA design principles going back to 1.0; maps refer to topics, not to elements smaller than topics.
- Eliot; I also proposed an element re-direction method, which we correctly jettisoned as too complicated.
- Kris; what I'll suggest is that once the minutes for this meeting come out, I'll post a response for the blog post to the TC, and get feedback on it, then once I've seen the responses and adjusted the response as necessary, I'll respond to Radu's post. I'll also include a request for them to join OASIS and participate on TC.
- Robert; I'm happy to help with response, and there are still 2 more points.
Radu's point #6 - DITA not prescriptive enough
- Kris; I'm not sure what we can say about 'relaxed content model'; that's also been part of the basic design of DITA from the beginning.
- Eliot; it's an unavoidable result of the specialization feature.
- Robert; we could avoid it, but it would make specialization more constrained., also a design principle.
- Robert; another response would be to encourage use of schematron or make constraints easier in 2.0
- Kris; well, we know we'd love to make constraints easier, but we just don't know whether or not we can do it.
Radu's point #7 - @deliveryTarget
- Kris; the whole point of deliveryTarget was to have a flexible method of specifying formating; reaction to earlier @print.
- Scott; ditaval already supports filtering on deliveryTarget, so what's the problem?
- Robert; the request is that if you put deliveryTarget=pdf, it should be removed from any publication going to HTML.
- Scott; the DITA-OT could be modified to do that, but that's not something to be modified in the spec.
- Kris; the whole idea for @deliverytarget was to be future-friendly
***ActionItem: Kris will draft a response to "Radu's post for review by the TC.
8. Delayed conref domain
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201708/msg00056.html (Eberlein, 29 August 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201709/msg00005.html (Anderson, 05 September 2017)
Decision: Do we want to remove this from DITA 2.0? Move proposal to stage 2 with an appointed owner?
- Kris; need to decide whether we're planning to do this for 2.0
- Robert; I think we should, but I can't do it myself.
- Kris; Alan, you volunteered, didn't you?
- Alan; yes, I did
- Kris; what is our process?
- Robert; l need a motion, but not a roll-call vote, then it's up to Alan to create a stage 2 proposal.
Motion to move this proposal to stage 2 with Alan as owner
Kris moved, Eliot seconded, approved by TC.
[no objections]
***ActionItem; Alan will create a stage 2 proposal for this work.
9. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02
New items: None
10. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals: Discussion
New map for publications in base
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/28
Previously discussed at the following TC meetings:
14 March 2017
21 March 2017
***ActionItem: Nancy will summarize discussion and post to list
Stan volunteered to help
11. Image element missing @format / suggestion or reminder for 2.0
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201709/msg00020.html (Anderson, 19 September 2017)
- Robert; in 1.3, I thought we'd made sure every element that had @href, we also had @scope and @format, but we didn't add @format to image; need to add for 2.0 and make sure that we get it right in any element that has href.
- Kris; is there any argument we could make to put this in an errata?
- Tom; is there any language in the spec that suggests that these go together, if we do, then we have an argument for it being in errata.
[there is such language, so this will go in Errata 02]
***ActionItem; Robert will send new email to list with this as a new errata item, and reference the spec topic that implies it.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]