| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC minutes 2 October 2018 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:14:31 +0000 (UTC)
1. Kris will make Robert's command-line equivalents for SoureTree actions available to TC
2. Kris will put on next weeks agenda to consider if we need other owners for care and maintenance of our OASIS stylesheets, since Bob is on leave.
3. Kris will open an OASIS publish request as soon as minutes are out.
4. spec editors will develop and document a plan for revision marking moving forward. We don't know if the function we had in 1.3 is functional or workable.
5. Nancy will review Keith's proposal on 'strong' element by end of this week.
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 2 October 2018
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Maria Essig, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Alan Houser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts
1. Roll call
Regrets: Dawn Stevens
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
25 September 2018:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00048.html (Magliery, 27 September 2018)
moved by Kris, 2nd'd by Nancy, approved by TC
New TC members: None
4. Action items
14 August 2018:
Robert: Provide command-line equivalents for SourceTree actions in education session slide deck (COMPLETED)
***ActionItem; Kris will make Robert's command-line equivalents for SoureTree actions available to TC
21 August 2018
Kris & Robert: Perform the best edit of multimedia topics that they can do in time available; due 18 September
11 September 2018
Kris: Review conversation with Joe Pairman, e-mails about metadata, and TC discussion in late 2017/early 2018; summarize to TC
18 September 2018
Alan: Review the TC list to make sure everyone who's new has access to DITAweb.
Alan: Perform a test run in DITAweb to ensure everything works; handle any issues with Congility before 28 September 2018
- Alan; all TC members have DITAWeb accts, so if your password doesn't work, let me know and I'll reset; I haven't yet tested the map Kris provided, but that's next on list.
- Kris; we're shifting schedule to next week, so pls do last items so we can open it by end of this week
- Alan; also, there are about 50 old DITAWeb accts for ex-voting members; should I delete them?
- Kris; no need unless it's impairing your ability to deal with DITAweb
- Alan; then I won't
25 September 2018:
Carlos, Alan: Upload full package of LwDITA committee note to TC repository: HTML, PDF, grammar files, DITA source, and sample files (all items listed on cover page of committee note) (COMPLETED)
Robert: Create GitHub issue to track "Improve consistency of file names and directory structure of the DITA grammar files" (COMPLETED)
Eliot: Make a list of inconsistent file names in the grammar files
- Eliot; I thought about it, but haven't done it yet
- Kris; when might we see it?
- Eliot; I'll try for next week; it's not urgent, but it's also not difficult.
Kris: Provide Alan with information about the master map for the !DITAweb review (COMPLETED)
5. Subcommittee and liaison reports
6. LwDITA SC items
New version of "Lightweight DITA: An introduction"
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=63958&wg_abbrev=dita (Evia, 24 September 2018)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00041.html (Eberlein, 24 September 2018)
- Carlos; everything is correct, we just have to update it to reflect today's vote.
- Alan; some of the acrobat didn't ocnvert links, links broke across lines, I'm not concerned about that unless someone else is; it's a mystery to me why some arbortext links are underlined and some are not, but it seems super-minor.
- Carlos; what are they?
- Alan; on front page, under addit'l artifacts, some links underlined, others not...
- Kris; OASIS will come back and ask us to fix these.
- Alan; if TC can approve with that contingent, we will fix it.
- Kris; let's do that; the thing to do is first, fix the hyperlink broken across lines. As far as underlining, check the first version, which OASIS approved; I think they want things to NOT be underlined
- Alan; just to be clear, this will just change the acrobat hot spots
- Kris; any other questions?
- Carlos; fyi, in CN version 1, in 'Additional Artifacts', the first link is underlined and others were not.
- Kris; in which case, we only need to fix the broken URL. If they bring up anything else, we'll see. We also need an AI to look at CN PDF and see if there are stylesheet issues; this may need to be an open AI, since Bob is on leave.
***ActionItem; Kris will put on next weeks agenda to consider if we need other owners for care and maintenance of our OASIS stylesheets, since Bob is on leave.
Next we voted to approve/release the latest CN:
VOTE: "I move to approve "Lightweight DITA: An Introduction" Version 1.0 Committee Note 02 and all associated artifacts packaged together at https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=63991&wg_abbrev=dita as a Committee Note and designate the HTML version of the note as authoritative.
motion moved by Kris, 2nd by Carlos
'yes' votes: Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Maria Essig, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Alan Houser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts
'no' votes: 0
***ActionItem: Kris will open an OASIS publish request as soon as minutes are out.
7. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
[no changes to current deadlines]
8. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
Make @audience, @platform, @product, @otherprops into specializations
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201810/msg00001.html (Anderson, 01 October 2018)
Robert gave overview; spec language hasn't changed much; one part that might be confusing is the one about grouping syntax for filtering; we put that in in 1.3. All that did was allow you to use @ gen'lization syntax when you want to specialize these @'s. This is a way to specialize @s without going thru grammar work.
- Kris; one comment, I looked at modified spec language, and in your first topic to be updated, in each desc of those 4 @s, there's a common sentence that can be moved out of indiv @ descriptions and into the common intro. That is: "if no @ is speifiefied, but specified on ancestor...." It would be easier if that was in just one place. We don't need to revise the proposal, just fix it when it's implemented.
- Robert; I agree; it's just conref'd in, but would be better to just have it once.
- Kris; other comments?
- Eliot; it looks good to me.
[will move to a vote next week]
9. Continuing item: Titleless Topics and Context-Independent Content
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00029.html (Stevens, 18 September 2018)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00034.html (Swope, 19 September 2018)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00035.html (Hudson, 19 September 2018)
- Kris; can we go forward with this, or do we need to wait for Dawn?
- Robert; I think we need to wait for Dawn.
- Kris; all TC members should read the summary in the minutes; hopefully, Dawn will join us next week and we can move forward.
10. Update from DITA 2.0 spec editors
DITAWeb review of subset of element reference topics to open Monday, 08 October 2018
Elements that exist in both DITA and LwDITA
- Robert; we had an approved proposal from Alan to remove delayed conref domain, so that has now moved into the 'completed' column.
- Kris; one question; are there other proposals that still need to be implemented? I suspect the multimedia domain proposal?
- Robert; there are a few that need to be implemented, but the multimedia domain one is complete in the base.
- Kris; I think we have a number of completed proposals, e.g.,
delayed conref, removing deprecated items.
- Robert; at this point, we've also completed 'remove xtrf/xtrc' and 'remove deprecated items', also 'outputclass' proposal.
- Kris; I think we need to start identifying completed proposals - most of the completed projects are deletions, Also we now have proposal #18, which changes rather than deletes text.
***ActionItem: spec editors will develop and document a plan for revision marking moving forward. We don't know if the function we had in 1.3 is functional or workable.
- Robert; I'm skeptical that we can have that with 2.0, because there's so much re-org, so when we integrate something, it's into language that doesn't look like 1.3. It might be easier to just mark topics that relate to a given function, rather than do change tracking.
- Kris; I think we need to do something in the middle; eventually we won't be able to have that granularity, but we need to initially track on a fairly granular basis.
Spec editing resources
Style guidelines for the DITA specification
Editorial work for DITA 1.3
More style guidelines for the DITA specification
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?
11. Continuing discussion: 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)
DITA users want more (and better) examples
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00025.html (Eberlein, 18 September 2018)
New https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00033.html (Schengili-Robert, 19 September 2018)
- Keith; Stan helped me to compile comments and to categorize them; the mail above has all comments relating to spec examples from various listening sessions. People are using the spec as a primary source, and finding it lacking in examples.
- Kris; do we have any info tied to this that tells us what version of the spec they're talking about? I'm bringing that up because we made a quantum leap between 1.2 and 1.3.
- Keith; I believe the majority of folks were using 1.2, but people were looking at 1.3 spec and no one commented on 1.3 being better, and some were beginning to or had gone to 1.3. Also, there was a nice summary on the last DITA seesion from a couple of weeks ago. We asked if we could ask about spec examples, the majority were from Oracle; most were using 1.2, with one person using 1.3, and there was a request for better examples.
- Kris; we have 2 types of examples in the spec; long ones in arch. spec, that tend to be more complicated, and both simpler and complex examples in language ref. For 2.0, we're trying to make sure those examples refer not only to software, but other industries. It would be good to expand into industry verticals, but Adoption TC can certainly do that, though any new examples would have to be carefullly reviewed by TC.
- Robert; we are trying to fix some of this; there are cases in 1.3 where examples are lacking; partly, it's that some topics haven't been reviewed since early days (1.0? 1.1?). L&T is missing a lot of examples..., hopefully that's being addressed. I'm not sure that it's really the case that 'people don't think examples are better in 1.3' just because no one mentioned that. Despite knowing that it was better, people wouldn't use the spec because they had been bad before.
- Keith; a dictum; people never praise good docs, but criticize bad; so that may be the case, in any case, there were no comments specifically on 1.3 examples.
- Robert; I can't tell everyone at a listening session, but it would be good to make sure that listening session participants are aware of the work that went into the 1.3 examples. It'simportant to get the word out.
- Kris; if people at listening seesions make comments about examples, get them to be more specific; e.g., what feature /functionality are you talking about? It would give us more guidance
- Keith; I agree; despite the fact that good examples have been out there for years. But tech writing professionals do know about some resources (Thunderbird is a great sample set, but maybe not showing best practices) or an example set.
- Scott; does best practice content really belong in the spec, or in something else? Where should that live, in spec or in a white paper?
- Kris; another thing about listening session comments, in 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, spec was originally written as an internal IBM doc; we've been stripping best practices out of the spec ever since. Those best practices belong somewhere else, e.g., in books, articles, white papers, but not in spec. There may be some best practices around DITA implementation, but I'm not clear about even those being in the spec. It's certainly not about best practices for authoring
- Robert; I agree. Many problems from early specs are that they tried to be both spec and guidance. When rules suffered because of best practices, the rules got broken.
- Stan; we should take a look at our charter that our only deliverable is the spec; maybe it shouldn't be. Is some non-spec material, that we're removing, part of our charter? Maybe we need to look at our charter.
- Robert; all the material we're deleting is going somewhere, but there's no one who's signed up to do something with it. We can continue to produce documents that help the community, but the info shouldn't be in the spec.
- Kris; I don't think, as a TC, we've revisited our charter since 2008, when the Adoption TC was chartered. We're probably way overdue to do that. But that's not something we have space/time allocated for so we can do it. And do we need to do a more rigorous polling of DITA users about examples. so that we'll really understand the problem.
- Nancy, as point of info, at the Portland (OR) listening sesion, almost no one was on 1.3.
- Stan; many are locked into using 1.2 because of tool issues
- Kris; it's hard to know what people are looking at, 1.2 published by Webworks, current Oxygen version, etc., which is a challenge.
12. Review status of DITA 2.0 proposals in progress
stage 2.0 in progress; delete XMLMention domain
- Keith; what about strong elements? I had a review from Deb; Bob Thomas said he'd help review, but he had to drop out.
***ActionItem: Nancy will review Keith's proposal on 'strong' element by end of this week.
- Kris; possible deadline?
- Keith; proposal #107 is essentially done for stage 2, so we could schedule a discussion for 10/9
- Kris; OK, we'll do it next week. Also, Keith, please ask Eric about his bookmap design issue.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]