| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 13 November 2018 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:21:18 +0000 (UTC)
1. Eliot will do test validation of proposed grammar file re-factor
2. Robert will update process page to have just 1 review required for stage 2. [already done]
3. spec editors will meet and talk to Carlos and Alan about points of overlap in LwD spec and DITA 2.0.
4. spec editors will incorporate comment from review and produce an updated version of element ref topics.
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 13 November 2018
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Kris Eberlein, Nancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Jim Tivy
1. Roll call
Regrets: Dawn Stevens, Alan Houser, Stan Doherty, Carlos Evia
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
30 October 2018:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201811/msg00002.html (Harrison, 05 November 2018)
moved by Kris, 2nded by Scott, approved by TC
New TC members: None
4. Action items
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
25 September 2018:
Eliot: Make a list of inconsistent file names in the grammar files (COMPLETED)
02 October 2018:
Spec editors: Develop and document a plan for revision marking for DITA 2.0 spec
30 October 2018:
Kris: Submit request to publish committee note
Kris: Open GitHub issue for committee note PDF issue regarding formatting (some URLs are not blue) on coverpage
5. Report back from DITA Europe and DITA-OT Day
- Robert; tuned in for Kris's closing presentation on 2.0; lots of interest from crowd, lots of questions, even though it was at the very end of the program. A lot of excitement over nested steps proposal.
- Eliot; it went well, I was pleased by questions; everyone seemed to pretty excited by 2.0.
- Robert; the rest of the conference went prety well also; not too many TC members (not as many as last year). DITA-OT day went well also; there was less time on extended toolkit, and more people presenting their extensions.
- Eliot; there was a lot of interest in Jarno's plugin registry.
- Robert; given that specializations are often plugins, this makes them more usable. Was created by Jarno; you can put any plugin you want in there, with a list of what OT versions it's compatible with. He's still working on better ways to query it, but a lot of those who presented plugins at DITA-OT Day are already populating it.
- Krisl is this an area where the TC or adoption TC should have more involvement?
- Robert; anyone is welcome to publicize it. Given that it's the open source side of the DITA world, anyone is welcome to contribute. Jarno has opened a few issues already, on how to best display avaiable plugins, anything else would be welcome. The idea of plugin registries has been out there as a theory since DITA 1.0; a lot of specialization thinking/design included the idea of a registry, but one never happened till now. This registry isn't quite what was envisioned - plugins are hosted wherever you want to put them; they're not hosted on the registry site; also, the registry isn't doing any validation.
- Kris; are any of the specializations being stored there for doctype shells, as well as specializations?
- Robert; yes, you can use it to distribute any DITA artifacts you want.
- Kris; if the TC produces any non-specification docs (e.g. another CN), those should be advertised there as well.
- Robert; it was released a little over a week ago, since then Jarno has alredy added support for drop-down listings to limit plugins to specific OT releases.
- Kris; can you send out the registry link to TC? and does anyone have questions?
- Scott; what was the most interseting presenattion on DITA-OT Day?
- Robert; Jarno's on his plugin registry, certainly, and Jason Fox on unit-testing plugins.
- Eliot; I thought the most interesting were the unit-testing demo, and Lionel Moizeau's talk on small team development strategies.
- Kris; I just came back from a client who's only using Github at corporate level. Also, were there any general takeaways, and how did it compare to DITA/NA in Denver this year?
- Eliot; there seemed to be a lot more focus on 'how we do things in our organization', and much less 'DITA stuff is so hard.' More on 'here's how to undertand this technical detail'. They're talking about DITA as an established fact and how they're using it, not how hard it was.
- Kris; I had that sense already back in 2016...
- Eliot; There didn't seem to be anything earth-shattering, all very mundane; it reflects the maturity of a large user community.
- Kris; right, maturity, as in DITA no longer being a 'shiny new object.'
- Eliot; and it would be interesting to compare it to TC world, which is going on right now.
- Kris; we'll hear about that next week...
6. Grammar Filename Analysis
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201811/msg00008.html (Kimber, 13 November 2018)
Eliot; I reviewed filenames and how everthing is organized, the way base modules are organized and named; topic.mod and map.mod not conisstent with rest of grammar files. e.g. commonElements rather than commonelementsDecl.mod and tblDecl.mod rather than tableDecl.mod
1. all grammar files should be directly ref'd from shells, rather than from .mod files; the current setup makes it impossible to constrain some things without a lot of overhead.
- Kris; how twould that work from DTD vs. RNG?
- Eliot, it would work the same way, basically.
- Kris; I know there are some things with constraints that are easier from RNG.
- Kris; wrt the shell for topic.dtd, how many base grammar files have to be added to that file?
- Eliot; I think 2 or at most 3. [there are 3 included in topic.mod which would be moved to shell).
- Kris; some folks find just configuring shells to be difficult.
- Nancy; but I think some of the confusion in configuring shells is figuring out which of the .mod files you think should be needed are already called from other .mod files.
- Eliot; I agree, in any case, it's much easier from RNG and hopefully most users will be using RNG for that, even if they work with DTDs.
2. there should be a topicmod.ent and map.ent; currently neither of those.
3. I'd like to correct table pattern/parameter entity names; they're inconsistent with everything else.
- Chris; for domains, we have a long name for domain file (.rng, .ent, .mod), and a short name for specifier for class token; I think it would be easier if they were the same, e.g. hi-d.ent and hi-d.mod
- Eliot; I didn't see a need to go to that level, but I can certainly see why you'd want that.
- Kris; I think 2.0 would be an excellent time to do this kind of simplification. How do we need to track this thru proposal process? We're effectively hearing a stage 1 proposal
- Chris; would any of this be reflected in specification itself?
- Eliot; I haven't suggested any kind of naming conventions.
- Chris; i think a code refactor needs some kind of process.
- Robert; the only problem is that there may be some people referring to these without public IDs; their stuff will break, but I don't think we can help that.
- Eliot; it's a simple migration; we can document this.
- Robert; we've made changes in the past, and no one's gotten upset, so I wouldn't worry about it. I'd say we shouldn't go thru full proposal process.
- Kris; any objection to treating this as a code re-factoring, rather than a proposal?
- Kris; we need TC consensus; any objections?
- Tom; no abjections, but before we fully agree, I think we should try to do it, maybe with 1.3 spec, as a trial run, to make sure it is successful. I don't expect a problem, but think we should test before we agree that this is our new code.
- Robert; one way to do that; if you've hooked up Travis tool to your Github account, when you push changes to the fork, Travis will test it on the way to allowing the fork.
- Eliot; I can take an action item to do that test.
***ActionItem: Eliot will do test validation of proposed grammar file re-factor.
- Kris; any reason to do the test with 1.3, or should we use 2.0?
- Eliot; no reason to use 1.3, I'd do it with 2.0.
- Kris; Tom, the test you suggested is built into out Github proesses
7. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
- Robert; #105 (redesign chunking), no progress
- Kris; can you give us a new deadline?
- Robert; next Monday (11/19)
- Eliot; #21 (Resolve inconsistent class attribute for shortdesc, linktext, and searchtitle) and #34 (Remove topicset and topicsetref) are done and out to review; Robert has already reviewed 21, For 33 (Deprecate or remove copy-to attribute), I started working on stage 2 text for that; I think I need reviewers, hopefully Robert and Chris.
- Kris; let's consider these as dates for things to come to TC; in the list, note that things are out to review, and the status of the reviews (out for review, reviewed edits back to owner, reviews incorporated, etc)
- Eliot; do we need more than one reviewer for stage 2?
- Kris; I think we should only require one.
***ActionItem; Robert will update process page to have just 1 review required for stage 2. [already done]
- [Tom updated schedule page to reflect current statuses]
8. Review status of DITA 2.0 proposals in progress
Kris; Chris; since your proposals are in review stage, who are your reviewers?
- Chris; #8 (new vocabulary element for inclusion of external XML and text markup), that's at stage 3, out to Eliot and Robert, will get feedback from Eliot on Dec 4th.
- Chris; wrt #16 (Add titlealts to maps), that's at stage 2, that's out to Robert, Bob T, and Eliot.
- Kris; can Dec 4th be a new date for #8?
- Chris; depends on amount of Robert's feedback...
- Kris; any thoughts on when reviews can be completed?
Alan is also reviewing #16, was aiming for feedback soon.
9. DITA 2.0 specification reviews
DITAweb review of subset of element reference topics/overlap with Lightweight DITA to open Tuesday, 16 October 2018
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201810/msg00026.html (Eberlein, 16 October 2018)
***ActionItem; spec editors will meet and talk to Carlos and Alan about points of overlap in LwD spec and DITA 2.0.
***ActionItem; spec editors will incorporate comment from review and produce an updated version of element ref topics.
- Kris; we may need to have a plan for reworking examples.
- Nancy; I want to thank editors for the work; I thought it looked really good.
10. DITA TC stylesheets for OASIS deliverables
DITA 2.0 stylesheets and complexity
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201811/msg00001.html (Thomas, 2 November 2018)
Clarification of work involved
- Kris; Bob made some suggestions about using URIs in keydafs
- Tom; Alan and I had noted Bob's email, but hadn't delved into his quagmire; there's a lot more work to do,
- Kris; we dont have a priority for this until the new year, work on spec and LwD should take precedence until then.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]