OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 7 May 2019 uploaded

Submitter's message
1. Kris will check on progress of bookmap propopsal (stage 2 or 3?) Also will talk with Eric about process for different proposal stages.
2. Dawn will respond to Radu's question about content models for example vs. section.
3. Robert will respond to Chris P about his requests srt examples in sections and parts within appendixes.

Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 7 May 2019
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:

Robert Anderson, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Hancy Harrison, Zoe Lawson, Eliot Kimber, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois, Dawn Stevens, Jim Tivy


1. Roll call
Regrets: Dawn Stevens, Alan Houser, Carlos Evia, Tom Magliery, Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Scott Hudson

2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
30 April 2019
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201905/msg00015.html (Harrison, 06 May 2019)
moved by Kris, 2nd by Dawn, approved by TC

3. Announcements: None

4. Action items
11 September 2018
Kris: Review conversation with Joe Pairman, e-mails about metadata, and TC discussion in late 2017/early 2018; summarize to TC: due 09 April Overdue
13 November 2018
Eliot: Test refactoring of grammar files; due 07 Mary
18 December 2018
Eliot: Investigate issue re earningAggregationsTopicrefConstraintMod.xsd; due 07 May
- Kris; Eliot, what about your stuff (33) due 5/7, can you do them next week
- Eliot; probably not; move them to 2 wks from now (5/21)
05 March 2019:
Alan: Update DITA 2.0 files for appropriate elements with LwD hint values for @format and create a pull request; due 23 April
02 April 2019
All voting TC members: Look through 1.3 normative statements listed in Nitchie's e-mail: What's missing? What's duplicative? What's nonsensical? How should we mark them up so we can get a clean extraction to build a (non-normative by definition) appendix?
09 April 2019
Eliot: Does SVG zip file need to be in techcomm grammar folder?
Kris and Tom: Finish up any discussion about examples in ArchSpec files
Nancy: Review LwDITA e-mail threads; create a Wiki page to track items, so that we can ensure that all items have been discussed and resolved
23 April 2019
Robert: Update chunking proposal
- Robert; done !
30 April 2019
Kris: Request template for "Migrating to DITA 2.0" committee note COMPLETED
Kris: Request OASIS Open repository for tools/scripts to aid users in moving to DITA 2.0
Robert: Complete review of stage two proposal for #33: Deprecate or remove copy-to attribute
- Robert; I gave this to Eliot to review 20 mins ago.

5. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals
New "normal if used" Value for @processing-role
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201904/msg00020.html (Kimber, 23 April 2019)
- Eliot; this came up originally in processing glossaries, where you want a glossary term to appear in a glossary, but only if the term referencing it appears in a publication. Using @processing-role="resource-only" results in glossentries not appearing, and using value "normal" means you get glossentries that aren't relevant to your content. So I'm proposing a third value for @processing-role, name 'normal-if-used', to cover this case. When this value is used, the topic woudl be resource-only unless it's used from a normal topic, in which case it becomed normal.
- Kris; questions?
- Robert; it makes sense, but edge cases will be difficult.
- Chris; what if a topic is ref'd from a normal topic that is filtered out via ditaval processing?
- Robert; this would require multiple levels of processing over and over until you get all the links.
- Eliot; that's how I've done it, processor goes over and over until I get no more links. So th processing's not difficult, just long.
- Chris; are you running it using DITA-OT?
- Eliot; my processing isn't toolkit-specific; I have to construct my own keyspaces. I appreciate the consideration of edge cases; I've only done it for straightforward cases.
- Chris; it's not just key refs that would trigger usage, but URIs as well.
- Eliot; no, I only think should be available using keys, not URIs, URIs are not as determinate.
- Robert; but lots of folks want to use URIs, not keys.
- Eliot; but URIs just don't work for this situation.
- Kris; but direct addressing is part of the DITA standard.
- Eliot; but a direct reference can't establish the use context of a topic.
- Chris; but in the vast majority of cases, there's only one of them...
- Eliot; but the point of DITA is reuse, and if topics are reused, that doesn't work.
- Chris; but there are millions of docs out there where it doesn't apply.
- Eliot; I say we don't have to accomodate them; because we have provided a mechanism - keys - that makes things work.
- Kris; we're moving away from stage 1 proposal
- Eliot; but we need to say that this is only valid for key-based addressing.
- Chris; consider an engineering doc that contains lots of schematics. you have a ditamap of all possible figures; it should be filterable based on processing role.
- Eliot; how would you generalize that processing without key refs?
- Chris; it's not a context thing; if there are any topics to be reached by this, make it a normal topicref
- Eliot; based in the same publication? I'd have to think about that.
- Chris; I don't see it as making the solution any more complicated.
- Eliot; I'd have to think thru that use case.
- Kris; this may be a good stopping point for today.
[to be continued]

6. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals
Continuing discussion
Initial discussion
21: Resolve inconsistent class values for shortdesc, linktext, and searchtitle
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/65247/Issue21-ResolveInconsistentClassValues.pdf (Kimber, 04 May 2019)
- Eliot; those elements have diff @class values depending on whether they're defined in topic or map. The proposal is to move definitions of these elements to commonElements.mod, so that map and topic are sing the same definition. The definition would be the one currently used in topic. Only code that expects to find map versions needs to be updated to look for topic as well
- Kris; questions?
- Robert; most people won't know it happened, but for implementers, it will be a nice cleanup.
- Kris; I agree.
[TC vote next week]

34: Remove topicset and topicsetref
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/65246/Issue34-RemoveTopicsetTopicsetref.pdf (Kimber, 04 May 2019)
- Eliot; these are elements in map that were always problematic; not much used, no real need for them. so we're removing them entirely.
- Kris; these were added at 1.2, championed by Erik Hennum; tied to experimental use combining subjectscheme with theoretical outputs.
- Robert; They're still used at IBM, but we can put them in a domain if we ned them. I support removing them.
- Dawn; I agree
- Zoe; how do you migrate away from them?
[vote next week]

7. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
Continuing discussion
Issue #105: Simplify chunking
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201905/msg00018.html (Anderson, 06 May 2019)
- Robert; this change is what we discussed 2 weeks ago; previously there was a section (calling an entire topic) called "Impact of @chunk on linking". I've removed that topic and moved some of its explanatory content into an example that shows how one known edge case might result in ambiiguous links.
- Kris; questions?
[vote next week]

Initial discussion

8. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines

***ActionItem: Kris will check on progress of bookmap propopsal (stage 2 or 3?) Also will talk with Eric about process for different proposal stages.
- Eric; there was something about that in the old SVN repository, but I don't know if it's still valid.

9. Multimedia domain
Editorial reviews
Completed by Anderson and Eberlein
Edited topics reviewed by Nitchie
DITAweb review
Commitment from TC members
Committee note
Stub files and grammar files now in committee note repo, "multimedia-domain" branch
Outline of what the committee note needs to cover?
- Kris; Robert and I finished our initial review; Chris has reviewed that and there are just a couple of items for us to address; then we'll need to set up a DITAWeb review, then move forward with a CN. We have stub files for CN. I don't remember who volunteered to edit this CN (maybe Carlos?), is there anyone else who'd be willing to do a review of it.
- Nancy; some of the relevant folks may be at STC today.
- Kris; we need to think about 'what will this CN cover?' For context, LwD is including multimedia domain, so in order to have compatibility between LwD and 1.3, we need to make it possible to integrate multimedia domain into 1.3. The CN contains grammar and descriptions, plus guidance for how to integrate it. What will we recommend? Just have the CN contain a multimedia plugin? Or have folks integrate it into their own shells? Or deliver not only the domain, but shells that integrate it, so folks using out of the box shells can use it?
- Robert; if we deliver shells integrating this domain, it might mess with folks' shells, and might also bother OASIS.
- Chris; we can't ship shells that override already exisitng shells, but we could publish non-standard shells.
- Robert; and OASIS admin might be pissed...
- Chris; I think providing a plugin tied to a tool (e.g., DITA-OT) would be no good. Pointing to a Github repository with a plugin is OK, but not including it in the CN. We go to great lengths to distinguish DITA-OT from the DITA standard, we don't want to muddy the waters.
- Kris; I agree, but we're trying to provide this in advance of 2.0, in case LwD is released before 2.0. So I want real support for doc shells including it.
- Robert; We could provide a link to a plugin in a Github repo, or provide a zip with just the domain modules. If we introduce a new public ID for these shells, will folks have to consider in 2.0
- Kris; that's a good reason to not have doc shells that integrate it.
- Nancy; I'm wary of providing doc shells; we should instead provide good documentation that effectively instructions people how to integrate the domain into their current doc shells.
- Kris; I'm hearing consensus that we shouldn't provide doc shells, just point to doc shells that are marked very clearly that they're not actual ones, and can't be dep[ended upon.
[gen'l agreement]

10. dita-comment
a. Clarify content model for DITA example
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201902/msg00000.html (Radu Coravu, 25 Feb 2019)
- Dawn; with my clients, I've always done the same for example as with section, or else pointed them to gen'l task.
- Robert; the intent was the same. A lot of intent around example and section was to have them the same, but it just never got written up.
- Kris; so is our answer to radu "yes, its should only have one title, but it's not enforced by the grammar files". Do I have a volunteer to respond?
- Dawn; I can do that
***ActionItem: Dawn will respond to Radu's question about content models for example vs. section.

b. RE: noting a few limitations in my FrameMaker-to-DITA migration effort
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201905/msg00000.html (Chris Papademetrious, 30 Apr 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201905/msg00009.html (Kimber, 04 May 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201905/msg00022.html (Stevens, 07 May 2019)
- Eliot; he was asking for 1) ability to have parts in appendixes. and 2) examples in section.
- Robert; putting an example in a section generally won't work. He mentions 'processing issues', but a processor issue is pretty much by definition not a spec issue.
- Kris; Robert, can you respond about examples in section?
- Robert; yes, I can do that.
- Kris; so what about parts within appendix?
- Dawn; I always thought that maybe you could have 'appendices' to group appendixes, but they want to have massive parts with both chapters and appendixes.
- Eliot; I always thought of 'appendices' as a container for multiple appendixes.
- Robert; I thought of it as peer of part, as Dawn did.
- Eliot; does appendixes allow a title today?
- Eric; yes,
- Robert; exactly the same as part.
- Kris; we need to know more about his use case.
- Eliot; maybe it's multiple groups of appendixes that are related, but I wouldn't call them parts...
- Kris; maybe we just need to ask him for more info about his use case.
- Eliot; I agree
- Nancy; yes, we're just guessing here.
- Kris; Robert; can you ask about use cases also?
- Eliot; allowing appendices to repeat would be good thing to add to Eric's proposal
- Kris; no, that proposal should be considered done, in terms of content to be included. If we want to do more, we need to start another proposal, so the existing one can get completed.
***ActionItem: Robert will respond to Chris P about his requests srt examples in sections and parts within appendixes.

12 noon ET close

-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 7 May 2019

No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

Submitter: Ms. Nancy Harrison
Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC
Folder: Meeting Notes
Date submitted: 2019-05-09 21:31:10

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]