| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 11 September 2018 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:05:49 +0000 (UTC)
1. Kris will review her conversation with Joe Pairman as well as previous TC discussions and bring a metadata proposal to TC
2. Kris will organize call to share information about key definitions that we use to produce OASIS required cover pages and other OASIS-required info.
3. All TC members need to look at Carlos' new PDF and let him know if you have questions. [Kris's question is; 'should we pare down the rev history - it's very long?' feedback on that would be welcome.]
4. Kris will start an DITA 1.3 Errata03 wiki page for the bug Eliot noticed in the grammar files wrt @format on maprefs.
5. Eliot will look at spec files and see if any changes needed there wrt bug described in ActionItem #4.
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 11 September 2018
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
Robert Anderson, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Richard Hamilton, Nancy Harrison, Alan Houser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Joe Storbeck
1. Roll call
Regrets: Tom Magliery, Maria Essig, Bob Thomas, Carsten Brennecke, Deb Bissantz
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
28 August 2018:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201808/msg00063.html (Magliery, 28 August 2018)
moved by Kris, 2nd by Dick, approved by TC
New TC members: None
STC Summit Call for Proposals open
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00007.html (Houser, 07 September 2018)
- Alan; wrt STC summit in Denver next May 5-8, this conference has been significantly changed from last year, I'm managing tools/tech track, and looking for ideas from this TC. The event had swung too far in the direction of 'soft skills', it's now going back to some more hard skills; I'm hoping to see proposals for some intro DITA talks (advanced ones wil really be not appropriate), esp LwD.
- Kris; many of us have been disappointed in STC conferences in the past, and have stopped going or making proposals.
- Alan; yes, we're hoping to change that.
- Kris; please let us know if there are any holes after you get proposals.
- Alan; will do.
- Carlos; maybe a panel on comparing LwD, 1.3, 2.0?
- Kris; that's usually too technical for a gen'l audience; comparing releases is just over their heads.
- Alan; I'd agree.
- Kris; I don't think most people can discern, or care about, differences between 1.3 and 2.0, maybe between full DITA and LwD?...
4. Action items
31 July 2018:
Kris: Communicate with Joe Pairman about metadata attribute proposal for DITA 2.0 (COMPLETED)
- Kris; I had a call w/him yesterday. will try to bring a proposal back to the TC.
***ActionItem: Kris; will review her conversation with Joe Pairman as well as previous TC discussions and bring a metadata proposal to TC
14 August 2018:
Robert: Provide command-line equivalents for SourceTree actions in education session slide deck
- Robert; I need to go thru your Github presentation; ping me at some point.
21 August 2018
Kris & Robert: Perform the best edit of multimedia topics that they can do in time available; due 04 September
- Kris; not done with this yet; Robert, can we get that done this week?
- Robert; probably, but that's as much OASIS time as I can do this week...
- Kris; ok; let's do it, since it's a blocking issue.
Subcommittee and liaison reports
Report from DITA Adoption TC?
- Keith gave overview: the key thing is that Scott has set up a DITA listening session in Denver on Thurs, Sept 20 at Oracle offices. 4-6:30 MST. We'll be talking about planning for the effort around the new web site. also working on a white paper. [See below for discussion of my email about 1.3 code examples.] Also, we're changing the time of Adoption TC mtgs to be right after TC meetings to encourage attendance by more TC members.
5. LwDITA SC items
New version of "Lightweight DITA: An introduction"
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=63908&wg_abbrev=dita (Posted by Evia, 11 September 2018)
- Carlos gave overview of last LwD call; Main thing was that I identified elements that MDITA has to represent 1.3 elements. We added a different way to mark up footnotes and 'dl' element in MDITA. btw, the cover page of the CN is wrong, but otherwise we made all the necessary changes. Alan and I are working with Antenna House to get the right OASIS icons in the PDF, still working on it.
- Kris; this CN will still have the same title, but will be incremented from CN 0.1 to 0.2
- Kris; I want to share knowledge about using key defs for OASIS; maybe we can have an webex to share the info. We need to have better info in our key def maps, and we need to have it documented. It is much simpler for CNs.
***ActionItem: Kris will organize call to share information about key definitions that we use to produce OASIS required cover pages and other OASIS-required info.
- Kris; Carlos, do you want feedback, and should it just come on the list?
- Carlos, yes, and yes.
***ActionItem; all TC members need to look at Carlos' new PDF and let him know if you have questions. [Kris's question; should we pare down the rev history - it's very long? feedback would be welcome.]
- XDITA map broken in our grammar files?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201808/msg00053.html (Eberlein response to Evia, 23 August 2018)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201808/msg00054.html (Evia, 24 August 2018)
- Kris; what is this about?
- Carlos; Mark Giffin is reseaching this; if it's a bug in the code, we'll get it fixed.
6. Update from DITA 2.0 spec editors
Spec editing resources
Style guidelines for the DITA specification
Editorial work for DITA 1.3
More style guidelines for the DITA specification
- Kris; we met twice in the last week; the goal to make examples more robust. Tom may be joining as another spec editor. This effort was sparked by email from Bill Burns on style guidelines. All folks working on specs should read and ask questions. As a gen'l reminder; we use IBM style guide as our style guide, so get a copy and use it.
7. GitHub education
Session one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKiorByXuOE&feature=youtu.be
Session two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jrpKoA0ZYM&feature=youtu.be
Any current questions or needs?
Login issues from SourceTree
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00006.html (Burns, 04 Sep 2018)
- Kris; any comments?
- Bill; I'm still having login problems...
- Kris; maybe you'll want to try a differennt UI?
- Stan; Tortoise is pretty friendly and reliable
- Robert; also, gitfork, gitcricken, gittower are all recommended
- Nancy; slides and session recordings were very helpful, thx.
8. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
Allow steps to nest
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00005.html (Anderson, 04 Sep 2018)
Robert gave overview from his mail (above link). One thing is that this will be a major backwards-incompatible change, we'll have to think about migration issues.
- Eliot; a couple of questiosns. Should you also allow steps-informal?
- Robert; steps-informal is only a container, a specialization of section. It's really a differernt beast entirely. I don't think it should be allowed.
- Eliot; second question; we haven't removed 'substeps' as part of proposal from grammar files.
- Robert; they should have been removed.
- Kris; I see them too, in the HTML version.
- Robert; the .css fille isn't working; they should have a strikethrough.
- Kris; when we vote on this, we should be looking at a document where the strikethrough is visible.
- Robert; I'll tweak that so it shows up; it is removed from DTD and RNG.
- Kris; I've had to resort to using PDF or doing copy/paste of HTML
- Robert; it's confusing since bolded stuff does show up...
- Eliot; I'm still concerned that there's nothing like steps-informal.
- Kris; steps-informal doesn't belong as part of this proposal.
- Robert; I don't think we want to put that in as a child of steps.
- Eliot; no current docs that use task where you'd want it, once we allow steps within steps, but at the top level steps-informal is allowed as an alternative to steps.
- Robert; I would consider allowing it a problem.
- Kris; I would too, it would change the content model for steps
[discussion on where to put 'junk']
- Chris; I'd argue that expanding steps-informal would be a separate proposal for this.
- Robert; I agree, this came from a very specific user request.
- Nancy; I'd say that once you've made your choice of either steps or steps-informal at the top, you've made your choice on structure; you shouldn't get to do it again.
- Eliot; I can go with that.
- Kris; this will affect a lot of people, so we need to get info about it out to user community asap.
- Eliot; do we have any idea how many people use it?
Robert; when I sent out a query, I was surprised by the heat of the request for this.
- Kris; I have never seen a set of task topics that doesn't use 'substeps' in some places.
- Kris; we'll vote on this next week; we'll need a version with the strikethroughs.
9. NEW ISSUE: Bug in 1.3 learningMapDomain Declarations: No Default for @format for Maprefs
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00008.html (Kimber, 09 September 2018)
- Eliot; I discovered this by accident. We've provided a @format, but we never set a default in RNG, so DTDs don't have defaults either. A simple fix, but it is a bug.
- Kris; did we introduce these in 1.3?
- Eliot; yes, so entirely my fault.
- Kris; can this be a bug in the errata, or is it substantive?
- Eliot; I think it's a bug in errata, it's really just a typo in the grammar files.
- Kris; I would be extremely unhappy to have to put out another errata for 1.3...
- Eliot; if I'm the first person in 2 years to find this, it's probably not worth fixing in an errata. Anyone who cares can fix it with a constraint if they're really inconvenienced; on it's own it's not worth an errata.
- Kris; I suggest we open an errata03 list and addd this to it, in case theres a L&T version. If a showstopper comes up, then this will be recorded and included in the list.
***ActionItem: Kris will start a DITA 1.3 Errata03 wiki page for this item; fix would be to modify grammar files,
- Kris; any changes to spec?
- Eliot; don't think so
***ActionItem: Eliot will look at spec files and see if any changes needed there
10. NEW ISSUE: DITA Adoption Would Like to Expand the DITA 1.3 Code Examples
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00011.html (Schengili-Roberts, forwarded by Eberlein, 11 September 2018)
- Keith; listening sessions have brought up need for better example code. It would be nice to have better code samples in spec. Scott has a URL to an SVN repo where he has collected all examples used in 1.3 spec.
- Kris; I don't think there's a correlation between that repo and what's actuallly used to the spec.
- Scott; I pulled all of those from the spec, though in some cases I had to modify them to make them valid.
- Robert; but that was done before 1.3 spec was published, and a lot of examples were changed in between. I know they were taken from the spec, but they're no longer in sync.
- Scott; they might in fact be based on 1.2, but the concept was to make our examples testable, so I didn't keep it in sync.
- Keith; idea is to come up with better testable examples. When we did this for LwD, we discovered we needed some updates to the CN to be correct. Adoption TC would like to take examples, redo them for 1.3 context, and if we improve them, it would be nice if they could be re-incorporated in 2.0 spec. Does TC think this would be good or not? We'd like to work with TC, but it's not a requirement.
- Kris; I think we have a number of questions;
1. hearing from sessions about better code samples; what do people really mean by that?
2. wrt interaction between TC and Adoption TC; how can we work together to meet needs of folks asking for 'better examples'?
3. in work done so far for 2.0 spec, there's been a great deal of time spent re-doing examples, so it wouldn't really work for Adoption TC to be working with older examples.
4. there's the issue of testing and validating examples in spec; Robert and I have labored over that; often we don't want a 'complete' example in the spec for a number of reasons.
- Scott; if we did have testable examples, that would help us find issues in grammar, and keep them error-free.
- Robert; to some extent yes, but also no. A lot of errors tend to be edge cases, and the spec will never have examples that show edge cases. Your suggestion can't hurt validity, but it won't fix that problem.
[to be continued]
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]