Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 27 August 2019 uploaded

[Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>]

        Submitter's message
        ActionItems:
   No New action items this week



=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 27 August 2019
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:	
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas


Attendance:
Robert Anderson, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Hancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Dawn Stevens, Jim Tivy    


Business
========

1. Roll call
        Regrets: Deb, Eric, Stan, Jacquie 


2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
        20 August 2019
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00082.html (Recorded by Harrison, 21 August 2019) 
- Kris moved, 2nd Scott, 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 15 Aug 
        18 December 2018
            Eliot: Investigate issue re earningAggregationsTopicrefConstraintMod.xsd; due 15 Aug 
        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 
        09 April 2019
            Eliot: Does SVG zip file need to be in techcomm grammar folder? due 15 Aug
            Kris and Tom: Finish up any discussion about examples in ArchSpec files 
        30 April 2019
            Kris: Request OASIS Open repository for tools/scripts to aid users in moving to DITA 2.0 
        28 May 2019
            Kris and Robert: Revise content and run it by Eliot (Draft-comment in spec WD03, section 3.3.3, page 37)
            Robert: Take an initial look at fixing this (Draft-comment in spec WD03, section 3.4.4, page 52)
            Chris: Look at draft-comment in spec WD03, section 8.2.2.19, page 210 
        18 June 2019
            Robert: Set up submodule for DITA for TechComm repository (COMPLETED)
            Robert: Work on remaining stylesheet issues; see https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/stylesheetBacklog 
        02 June 2019:
            Kris and Deb: Look at existing content in spec about map processing (especially construction of hierachy, rel tables) and make recommendations (COMPLETED by Kris; IN-PROGRESS by Deb) 
        20 August 2019
            Kris: Consider issue #163, discuss with Deb, and make recommendation to TC
            Kris and Robert: Check into proposal #9 on keyscope 
- Kris; Robert, I marked one of yours completed. any other updates?
[none]


5, DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
        Vote
            #277: Change specialization base of imagemap
                https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00071.html (Eberlein, 20 August 2019) 
moved by Kris, 2nd by Zoe
Voting results:
yes:		12 (Robert Anderson, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Hancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Chris Nitchie, Dawn Stevens)
no:		0 


6. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals
        Vote
            #279: Remove lockmeta attribute
                https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00072.html (Eberlein for Burns, 20 August 2019) 
moved by Bill, 2nd by Scott
Voting results:
yes:		12 (Robert Anderson, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Hancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Chris Nitchie, Dawn Stevens)
no:		0 


7. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals
        None 


8. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
        https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DeadlinesDITA2.0 
- Robert; can't do domains, but hope to do outputclass.
- Kris; do you have a new deadline for outputclass?
- Robert; Sept 10?
- Kris; Zoe, what about yours?
- Zoe; I'm aiming for end of next week
- Kris; and that's getting it to reviewers, right?
- Zoe; yes
- Eliot; my proposal for copy-to was revised and sent to reviewers
- Kris; so hopefully it will get to TC in Sept.


9. New item: Show-and-tell about reuse between DITA 2.0 and LwDITA
        Initial requirements:
            DITA has functionality that is omitted from LwDITA
            DITA uses the noun "element"; LwDITA wants to use the noun "component 
        Implementation approaches
            (1) Use common reuse topics and key references for names of elements/components; conditionally process based on @platform = dita|lwdita
            (2) Use common reuse topics; duplicate paragraphs/sections as needed, so as to enable use of preferred terms; conditionally process based on @platform = dita|lwdita 
            Chose #2, since #1 would violate best practices for "writing for translation" AND lost inline markup for XML mention domain when processed 
[screen sharing]
- Kris; we started with wanting to ensure that we have alignment betweeen LwD and 2.0. LwD is a subset, it doesn't have same functionality. Also, there's a strong language preference that requires a systemic difference, i.e., use of 'component' instead of 'element'.  This presented some problems. so we looked at the 2 diff implementation approaches, and decided between them, as noted above.
- Zoe; thx for doing all this reuse wok; looks hard.
- Kris; it took a few days of my time, partly because we tried approach #1 before discovering it wouldn't work.


10. DITA 2.0 editorial work: Base and Technical Content
        Base:
            Highlights?
            See Editorial work completed for a full summary
            See Backlog for open items and future plans
            Working draft #11:https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00094.html (Eberlein, 27 August 2019)
                Contains edits to indexing content, as well as a placeholder topic for "Determing effective attribute value" 
        Technical content:
            Highlights?
            Working draft 03: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00096.html (Eberlein, 27 August 2019)
            Work to be done: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/ditaTechnicalContent2.0backLog 
- Robert; we did a lot of work on DITA for Techcomm; look at our report (see  https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/editorialWorkCompleted). We've set up a new repo for techcomm, with a sub-repo, that looks like a  folder, which is a link to base spec, because it's really critical to be able to link from techcomm spec to base spec. Kris did a lot of work on source, setting up map, editing topics, lots of commits over last week. We also set up Travis continuous integration testing, to make sure we haven't broken anythig in grammar, [demo of this during mtg]. We also integrated all approved 2.0 techcomm updates to grammar and spec. so everything in base 2.0 and/or techcomm 2.0 has been applied.
- Zoe; should we start suggesting info to be included in test files when we make changes?
- Robert; better to test your files locally; the automated test just ensures that files parse, nothing more than that; we're not testing all the grammar, just that it wil parse. OTOH, if you propose a new topic type, that would be useful; otherwise not.  At any rate, we now have draft of techcomm 2.0.
- Kris; any thoughts comments questions?
- [none]
- Kris; we did some Github training a year ago, we may need to update training files to include new sub-modules, but not much.
- Kris; just fyi, this is what we do behind scenes to keep from screwing things up.
- Nancy; this is such a far cry from 1.2, it's great.
- Robert; most of this tech wasn't available at 1.2, or even at 1.3.



11. With multimedia coming, what happens to the object element?
        https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00004.html (Anderson, 02 August 2019)
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00005.html (Houser, 02 August 2019)
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00006.html (Anderson, 03 August 2019)
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00007.html (Evia, 04 August 2019)
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00008.html (Nitchie, 04 August 2019)
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00010.html (Michael Priestley, 05 August 2019)
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00011.html (Kimber, 05 August 2019)
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00013.html (Anderson, 05 August 2019)
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00014.html (Eberlein, 05 August 2019)
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00015.html (Kimber, 05 August 2019)
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00016.html (Nitchie, 5 August 2019)
            LwDITA subcommittee is amenable to basing multimedia domain on DITA 2.0
- Kris; we need a new design for the multimedia domain that's not tied to 1.3 restrictions.  Chris, I know you have other important proposals on your plate, but if we can get another implementer, would you be a reviewer?
- Chris; so are video and audio part of base now?
- Robert; yes.
- Chris; so, do we just chuck the 1.3 multimedia domain?
- Robert; we can make that grammar file available, but if they want to adopt it and them move to 2.0, that would have to be part of the migration.
- Chris; can we start with stage 3 with this then, instead of going thru whole process from stage 1?
- Robert; I would think so, none of the core design has changed, only how it's integrated.
- Kris; we could consolidate stage 2 and 3 together; some items are verified on stage 2 and not stage 3.  We pushed this thru a pretty thorough DITAWeb review in 1.3, and all that can be reused.
- Kris; please think about taking on adding audio, video, mediasource to base; otherwise I'll figure out a way to do that.


12. New item: Mandate processing order for DITA 2.0
        TC has approved this at the stage one level
        Discussion needed 
- Kris; we need a full discussion of this at TC level. With 1.x, we avoided ever stating whether filtering or resolivng conrefs needed to come first.
- Robert; it's been a hard problem ever since 1.0 came out. filtering early has outcomes on processing; with IBM's large customers, we have to filter early, but that has difficult implications. But many processing features added later really have to be done in a certain order.
- Eliot; before we had keys, the issue was simpler. Theoretically, it's better to resolve, than filter, but that can often require a lot of extra processing time.  With keys and branch filtering, we have a similar challenge; if you do things most simply, at some point there's an explosion of content that yuo know will get filtered out.  So there's now a notion of 'filter-aware processing', e.g. setting up processing to ignore stuff that will eventually be filtered out.
- Robert; it sounds like simultaneous detection of multiple conditions/steps, may be too complex.
- Eliot; if processor is aware of filtering conditions, it can ignore some things based on filtering conditions.
- Robert; I'm not sure all that engineering is practical.
- Eliot; It is, but not in the context of the DITA-OT.
- Kris; if we don't have a mandated processing order, then different users, using the same source but different processors, get different outputs, and that's an issue for interoperability.
- Eliot; the difference is in what's actually published.
- Robert; there are also different edge cases.
- Kris;  In 2010, we discussed this issue, and pinpointed cases where you'd get very different outputs from filtering first or last.
- Robert; the issue with mandating processing order is that depending on which order we mandate, the result could be that some of thsoe examples simply can no longer be generated..  DITA-OT came from IBM, which had to be used filter first. But even from 1.0, other major processors did it filter last. And from backwards compatibility perspective, we could never do it.
- Chris; what if we have multiple filtering anchors, that could all be in action but at different points in the process?
- Eliot; that presumes some defined set of stages.
- Chris; isn't that what we're doing when we prescribe a processing order?
- Eliot; to handle key resolution and branch filtering, I don't think that would work.  If you filter before resolving direct conrefs, but not before resolving indirect conrefs, that would be different.
- Chris; it sounds like you're arguing against a prescribed processing order.
- Eliot; I was trying to make sure I understood the processing implications of the 1.3 design.  At that time, DITA-OT didn't produce what I considered the 'right' answer, and it still doesn't for 1.3, so I tried to figure out what reqs are implied by the ways keys and keyref works.  In abstract, this is the way it plays out, but as a standard, we can prescribe an order.
- Chris; the fact that the DITA-OT, which is in such widespread use,  does it wrong, is a reason for a non-normative appendix describing our recommended order.
- Kris; please talk on lists about this, and we'll talk about it again at future TC mtgs.

Other Business:
Eliot; i have topicsetref proposal ready for review.
[Kris and Bill will review]


12 noon ET close 



        
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison

Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 27 August 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: 2019-09-02 00:34:36