| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 4 December 2018 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 06:39:02 +0000 (UTC)
- none from meeting
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 4 December 2018
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
[NOTE: there will be no TC calls on 12/25 and 1/1]
Robert Anderson, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Alan Houser, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Dawn Stevens, Jim Tivy
1. Roll call
Regrets: Carsten Brennecke, Deb Bissantz, Scott Hudson
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
13 November 2018:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201811/msg00019.html (Harrison, 15 November 2018)
moved by Kris, 2nded by Bill, 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
30 October 2018:
Kris: Submit request to publish committee note (COMPLETED)
Kris: Open GitHub issue for committee note PDF issue regarding formatting (some URLs are not blue) on coverpage
kris; robt and I will try to work on these
13 November 2018
Eliot: Test refactoring of grammar files
Spec editors incorporate changes from DITAweb review
[no change on 13 November items]
5. Report back from tcworld and Information Development World
- Alan; tcworld was a good conference; not a lot of DITA specifically, but some DITA contained in information for other topics, i.e., DITA was in the background more than it had been. Wrt tekom's new standard IIRDS, which is really a metadata packaging standard, it duplicates some of what DITA does; TCWorld folks working on IIRDS are very enthusiastic about it. So a lot of TCworld was about IIRDS, which is a broad standard, but DITA is definitely there as well.
- Tom; is IIRDS the standard we had a presentation on a couple of years ago?
- Kris; yes, and Carsten has been doing a DITA plugin for IIRDS as well.
- Alan; btw, the general consensus that the acronym is horrible.
- Kris; I was at Info. Development World, for the 2nd time, and it's changed dramatically. It's now a very curated conference, designed so things build on top of each other. It's primarily an audience of directors and advertising mgrs, but heavy on tech comm., it's becoming an interesting conference.
6. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
7. Review status of DITA 2.0 proposals in progress
- Kris; Robert, what about proposal #18, making original profiling @s into specializations of @props?
- -Robert; it was reviewed and I think it's done, I think it's in 'proposal complete' stage, ready to be implemented.
- Tom; I'll update the status page, so this should be gone.
- Kris; what about proposal #105 on chunking?
- Robert; I've made a lot of progress on that, but it's not quite ready for review, not all the examples are done; I expect to finish it by next week, Stan and Eliot are still reviewers; intend to get it to them by end of week.
- Tom; new deadline date?
- Robert; let's put 12/7; I don't know how long it will take to be reviewed, since it's complex.
- Kris; Eliot, what about #21 'Resolve inconsistent class attribute'? It's been reviewed by Robert, so are you waiting for another review?
- Robert; it only needs one reviewer in stage 2, so it's ready.
- Kris; when can it move to TC?
- Eliot; I can't commit to anything before 1/8.
- Kris; Chris, what about your proposals (#8 & #16)?
- Chris; have feedback for alternate titles proposal (#16); I'll try to look at the comments on it in Dec., so the first call in Jan. would be a good date.
- Kris; and what about #16 'Add a new vocabulary element for inclusion of external XML and text markup'
- Chris; I have feedback on this one as well; I'll try to get both of these ready for first mtg in Jan.
8. 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)
9. 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
10. 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)
- Dawn; what I took out of the discussions we had (in October) were that my thoughts could be developed into a first stage proposal, and that it didn't have to be creating a new topic type, but it could be simply having a way that indicated a topic could be processed as titleless. I can go that direction and write a proposal for that so it could be ready first week of Jan.
- Robert; I'm not sure how much of that discussion to rehash, but I had a lot of discomfort with the attribute proposal. I also had discomfort with my proposal, that titles are always required on topics, and filtering is not allowed on topic titles. But if we're relaxing the rules in 2.0, we could just allow filtering that filtered titles in topics. I still have some discomfort with that, but not so much.
- Nancy; so would this be part of another proposal that's already in chain?
- Robert; no, it just would make this a simpler proposal.
- Tom; wasn't there another piece of the discussion about letting users indicate that a topic was titleless from a map?
- Dawn; it included a way for that. But using Robert's suggestion above with filtering, we could use something like delivrytarget, so we could potentially use existing @s. We don't necessarily want to change the topic, just use a @ to render it as desired.
- Robert; doing it this way doesn't give you anything you wouldn't get from a actual titleless topic, but it would mean that processors don't have to learn anyhing new. It does open up one thing; it's always been a pain that section allows more than one title; this would allow you to filter extra titles out from sections.
- Kris; it's still a bit queasy for me; my mind is sold on 'topics have titles'; are there use cases for this?
- Dawn; the main ones are from L&T. In an 'assessment' most people who use it are doing one question per topic, so they can build a test from a bunch of questions; in that case, titles for individual questions are meaningless. That's the biggest use case. Also, users can have a set of objectives, and a single objective also wouldn't have a title.
- Chris; is there an expectation that chunking will be involved in this?
- Dawn; we haven't thought about chunking as being an important aspect of this. Users will be taking a test one question at a time. so they don't need to see all questions at one time, though there might be situations where you did want to see all questions togeher (e.g. if it's a printed test).
- Eliot; for online matereial, chunking depends on presentation; whether it's an online 'test' or an online assessment (one at a time). If we have topicrefs to titleless topics and treat those as if they were conrefs; chunking is somewhat implicit.
- Dawn; and recently with some clients, another use case is troubleshooting; people create troubleshooting topics separately, but want them presented as a table; each row is its own topic, so we end up throwing out the topic titles for those as well.
- Kris; so, I think we've moved away from adding @s that trigger ignoring of titles, to having filtering be enabled on titles. Would this be on all topic titles or just some?
- Robert; would have to be all.
- Dawn; would also be in section, fig, table, and everywhere else.
- Eliot; would be easy to allow this, so where you want a titleless topic, you specialize your topic types and in that spec., title is filterable or constrainable. This also provides the potential for allowing multiple titles...
- Chris; you could have multiple filterable title elements. I still think title is special, you can have at most one after filtering
Robert; yes, more than one title is the downfall of civilization.
- Chris; I agree.
- Eliot; I often define specialized topics with specialized titles.
- Kris; are we ready to decide which titles shoud be ignored?
- Dawn; are we ready to go to stage 2? for doing the proposal as a filtering method, I can have it ready for 1/8.
- Kris; we need stage 2 reviewers.
[Stan and Robert volunteered]
- Tom; I can add it to the proposal list, as issue #98.
- Dawn ; wrt hazard statement (#164); we had put that on hold. Is that still going to happen? Jang had proposed something much more complex that my requirements, which were just to add some elements to 'howtoavoid'.
- Robert; I don't think Jang will make progress on that.
- Kris; I agree w/Robert. could we fix the worst parts just by changing/adding some elements?
- Robert; we should also change messagepanel from '?' to '*' (1 to >1). I think Jang had totally convinced me of just some of what he wanted, but what he was suggesting was logical and straightforward. otoh, I don't think he was changing 'howtoavoid', so your work on that wouldn't interfere. I can help, but probably it won't happen this month.
- Dawn; I can work on something and pass it by you when you have time.
Dawn; I haven't looked, but if anyone still wants to submit a proposal for DITA/NA, If you haven't yet submitted one, just send me a note that you plan to.
11:41 am ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]