dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 8 October 2019 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 21:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
Submitter's message
Action Item:
1. Kris will look at stage 1 cards and make sure we have one about glossary. Either add a new one, or add notes to existing one about integrating glossary domain into 2.0 bookmap.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 8 October 2019
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
[meeting cancelled]
Attendance:
Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Hancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Joyce Lam, Zoe Lawson, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Dawn Stevens, Eric Sirois, Jacquie Samuels, Jim Tivy
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Bill Burns
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
01 October 2019
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00025.html (Harrison, 03 October 2019)
moved by Kris, 2nd by Scott, approved by TC
3. Announcements:
None
4. Action items
[no updates; see agenda for detailed list]
5. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals
Vote
None
Continuing discussion
None
Initial discussion
a. #33 Remove @copy-to
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00033.html (Kimber, 05 October 2019)
- Eliot; we all knew copy-to was problematic; proposal is to deprecate or remove. It basically gives authors control of what the output HTML file contains, and I was trying to find them another way to do that, but Chris and Robert convinced me that should be processor-dependent. so we'll just remove it and pretend it never existed.
- Robert; this element was a reaction to desire in 1.0 for an 'unbounded sense of possibilities.' Eliot started off work on it still wanting authors to have mandatory processing of keys, which might have been an effective way to get control, but mandating it would break everything we have today.
- Eliot; it's still a general requirement to provide way to allow deliverables to have stuff predictable and consistent, but there are any number of ways to do that, only one of which relies on keys. OTOH, might be worth having a white paper saying you need to think about this requriement at 2.0, but that's all.
- Kris; that would be a white paper from TC, not Adoption TC, given that it would be highly technical.
Zoe; wrt the migration guide, I understand why this is getting removed, but I find it hard to explain it.
- Eliot; basically, the migration guide should say "your processor needs to step up; talk to them"
- Kris; I don't know if I immediately understand it, or would understand migration strategy. Does there need to be more contextual info in the example section to make them easier to understand?
- Robert; to do that, we would need to reference processors and explain what they're doing, which would be us getting into processor implementation details, which we don't want to do.
- Eliot; all I'm saying is, if you're removing copy-to, you could use something else instead, by using a different keyname. It might be useful to have that discussion. Originally, Ihad thought to use keys to do what you were doing with copy-to. but Robert convinced me that wasn't a good idea, so we might want to just remove the example, and just say "talk to yur processor people."
- Kris; that woudl be helpful
- Zoe; I've been thinking of the migration guide as for authors, but is it for implementers as well?
- Eliot; yes, it is.
- Kris; I want to shelve discussion of this; can put it on agenda for next week. Zoe
- Kris; any comments, questions? I'd like Eliot to add more text around the examples.
- Eliot; will do
[vote next week]
b. #297 Allow example in more places
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00053.html (Hudson, 07 October 2019)
Questions/Discussion/Early feedback
- Scott; ( added example elements everywhere fig is allowed, except for nesting itself. The benefit is more semantic accuracy, but it also allows in more locations where it can be easily processed as a block level element with a title, like fig. Sent out all contexts where it would be; there are no backwards incompatible changes, since it already existed. And there shouldn't be migration requirements, since we're just adding something that already existed. I added an additional example at Chris/Kris's request. Any thoughts on the examples?
- Kris; I like the new example; it's easier to read and understand than the first one. I would like to see intro pappragraph between title and codeblock, but I wouldn't stall votw for that.
- Robert; I don't think we need an example to show new context, just to show how it's used.
- Zoe; I'm curious about how example interacts with stepxmp. They seem to be the same, but what about nesting? I don't think it makes sense.
- Kris; task is highly structured and meant to guide user on how to write it, but yes, having example in stepxmp would not be good...
- Scott; I agree.
- Kris; I also wonder about stepsection? I don't think we need an example there.
- Scott; I'd hate to intuit what people want in a stepsection... And there are other questions around step; if we allow stepxmp, would we want to allow example at same level, and deprecate stepxmp, or allow both?
- Kris; I don't think we want to do deprecating in 2.0
- Scott; Well, it might make sense then to just get rid of stepxmp, but then we'd have a migration issue.
- Zoe; getting rid of stepxmp would mean a lot of migration cleanup, and I'm not sure what it gets us.
- Kris; I advocate no example within stepxmp, but I'd want us to think again about stepsection. I wouldn't bring this up if it were anywhere but task, which is so tightly structured.
Zoe; I also like keeping steps cleaner, but that goes into a series of discussions around "how clean are your steps?"; allowing a structure that lets you get into a fuzzier writing technique.
- Kris; As I look at shortdesc of stepsection, it's not intended to repreesent a step in a task; it's so info can go in between steps.
- Robert; seems weird to have an sxample there, but I don't feel strongly one way or another.
- Chris; I could see the possibility of an example there. I'm leary of taking away something on a hunch; we should err on side of permissibility.
- Scott; I'd side with Chris on that.
- Kris; I'm convinced; Chris just provided a viable example of an example in stepsection.
- Nancy; so at this point, the only change from the current proposal is to remove example from stepxmp?
[correct]
- Kris; also, need to change the answer to "No" for the the backwards compatibility question 'changing a content model by removing something ...."
- Zoe; and what about allowing it in choiceoptionhead?
- Robert; most of what we allow in there is odd...
- Zoe; I just find putting an example in a heading odd...
- Robert; a lot of what's there doesn't make sense, but not many people use is so it's not worth the trouble to change.
- Scott; choicedesc has the same issue.
- Kris; there are a lot of elements in task where content models don't make sense, but we don't want to go down that rabbit hole. Task was designed to be exceptionally structured.
- Zoe; is propertytable going away?
- Robert; no, they'r allowed in one new context
- Kris; can we vote next week?
- Scott; I'm also missing an end tag in one example.
- Kris; so Scott and Eliot, you should both be making changes to your proposals, then we can vote next week; make sure you change links to previous proposal, so the site it has the link to the current one, so we know proposal has been revised.
[vote next week]
c. #29 Bookmap update (revised)
How best to handle mapresources?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00016.html (Eberlein, 02 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00017.html (Kimber, 02 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00019.html (Burns, 02 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00020.html (Nitchie, 02 October 019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00021.html (Eberlein, 02 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00022.html (Graydon Saunders, 03 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00023.html (Kimber, 03 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00024.html (Hudson, 03 October 2019)
Feedback from dita-users about mapresources
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00055.html (Eberlein, 08 October 2019)
- Kris; question is: do we want to hardcode mapresources in bookmap, or add it to the bookmap domain and make it available that way? My conclusion is that we should add it to mapgroup domain; some implementations might want to constrain that, but we don't want to constrain it ourselves as a TC.
Content model and attributes for mapresources
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00043.html (Eberlein, 07 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00044.html (Kimber, 07 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00045.html (Eric Sirois, 07 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00046.html (Eberlein, 07 October 2019)
- Kris; do we want it to have a processing role of "resource-on;y"? optional topicmeta and 0 or more data elements or mapref. Does that seem appropriate? any concerns
- Eliot; that seems correct to me.
- Kris; for @s, it has the standard @s, plus [see her list] We don't want to set defaults on @toc or @search, or on linking, plus there's no @chunk.
- Eliot; agree on no @chunk
- Eric; also agree on that.
- Kris; this wll go into stage 2 proposal for mapresources.
Bookmap and glossary reference domain
Background and info from minutes
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00013.html (Eberlein, 01 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00014.html (Eberlein, 01 October 2019
Integrate glossary reference domain into bookmap?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00047.html (Eberlein, 07 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00048.html (Hudson, 07 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00049.html (Eberlein, 07 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00050.html (Hudson, 07 October 2019)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00051.html (Eberlein, 07 October 2019)
- Kris; in the original stage 2 bookmap proposal, talked about hardcoding glosslist as part of content model for booklists. Do we want to integrate glossary domain into bookmap? I don't think we should add anything about glossary domain as part of this proposal, but rather include it as part of a larger proposal about glossaries.
- Scott; that's going back to our original 2.0 plans. It could be useful to have it there (in booklists).
- Eliot; it's easy enough to integrate it if we want to, but there's so much complexity around glossaries that we need to deal with that first, in its own proposal. Once we've addressed that, we can come back and see how it integrates with bookmap.
- Kris; so we'll take it out, and if we don't already have a stage 1 proposal for glossary support. that's where this should be considered.
***ActionItem: Kris will look at stage 1 cards and make sure we have one about glossary. Either add a new one, or add notes to existing one about integrating gloss domain into bookmap.
6. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
Vote
#34 Remove topicset and topicsetref
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00036.html (Kimber, 05 October 2019)
Eliot moved to approve this, 2nd by Dawn
Voting results:
yes votes: 14 (Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Hancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Joyce Lam, Zoe Lawson, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Dawn Stevens)
no votes 0
[proposal is approved for inclusion in 2.0]
7. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DeadlinesDITA2.0
[following items from list needed to be addressed]
Stage two
o (Evia) Column/row spanning in simpletable (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/292)
- Carlos; I contacted Alan and Michael with a question, but haven;'t -heard back.
- Kris; let's get you some other reviewers; if you have them, can you give us a date?
- Carlos; if I get review thsi week, then 10/22
- Kris; who can review? [need to be familiar with HTML table model]
[Robert & Eliot will review]
o (Eberlein) Updated bookmap design (revised) (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/29)
Due 08 October 2019 for submission to reviewers -- needs reviewers
[Nancy & Dawn will review]
Due 15 October 2019 for TC discussion
Stage three
o (Kimber) Resolve inconsistent class values for shortdesc, linktext, searchtitle (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/21)
05 October 2019 Ready for review -- needs reviewers
Due ? for TC discussion
[Deb & Zoe will review]
- Kris; if reviewers respond by EOB 10/11, can it be ready for discussion next week?
- Eliot; yes
o (Schengili-Roberts) Strong and em elements (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/107)
/! Needs deadline
- Kris; can you give us a deadline?
- Keith; mid-November - busy with Lavacon now.
- Kris; reviewers?
[Carlos & Stan will review]
o (Anderson) Add output class to DITAVAL flagging properties (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/252)
01 October 2019: Sent to reviewers (Kimber, Hudson)
/! Due 07 October 2019
- Robert; I'm waiting on Eliot for one review; sent it out last week.
- Eliot; don't remember seeing the mail.
- Kris; can we add another reviewer, in cas Eliot can't get to it?
- Eliot; I'll look for it as well.
[add'l reviewers: Carsten, Eric]
- Kris; can it be reviewed by EOB friday 10/11?
[yes]
Kris; from now on, we'll give reviewers a deadline as well, to tighten up the process,
8, Volunteer needed
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00056.html (Eberlein, 08 October 2019)
- Kris; need a volunteer to update proposal cards when we review them on the call. Please think about doing this.
[Eliot offered, but there are things that require his expertise; Kris would like this to be done by someone who currently doesn't have much on their plate.]
9. Approved DITA 2.0 proposals
Working draft #03
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/66003/DITA-2.0-proposals.pdf
Tally of approved proposals
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201910/msg00003.html (Eberlein, 01 October 2019)
- Kris; please take a look at these lists of proposals; I keep them updated. I did tweak some of the proposal titles, to make them more understandable in PDF TOC.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]