Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 4 February 2020 uploaded

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

        Submitter's message
        ActionItems:  
1. Robert will reply to user on Github (not on comment list)  wrt rules for nested conrefs within a conref push.
2. Kris will update upcoming deadline for proposal #107 to 2/25


=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 4 February 2020
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:	
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas



Attendance:
Deb Bissantz, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Gershon Joseph, Eliot Kimber, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois, Dawn Stevens, Robert Anderson, Jim Tivy, Frank Wegmann 


Business
========

1. Roll call
        Regrets: Carsten Brennecke, Chris Nitchie 


2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
        28 January 2020
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202001/msg00034.html (Harrison, 28 January 2020) 
moved by Kris, 2nd Bill, approved by TC


3. Action items
[updated items only - see agenda for complete list]
        28 May 2019: 
            Chris Kris: Look at draft-comment in spec WD03, section 8.2.2.19, page 210 IN PROGRESS 
        18 June 2019
            Robert/Kris/Bill: Work on remaining stylesheet issues; see https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/stylesheetBacklog . Stylesheet walkthrough held on Friday, 31 January 2020 at 1 PM ET. IN PROGRESS 
        03 December 2019
            Gershon Joseph: Summarize previous discussions about #28: New publication. Content in minutes and GitHub project card. 
- Gershon; this is in progress.
        07 January 2020
            Kris: Develop strawman schedule for DITA 2.0 work in 2020 Agenda item #7   IN PROGRESS 
        28 January 2020
            Kris: Respond to dita-users thread, explaining why hazardstatement is in base COMPLETED


4. DITA 2.0 bug fixes
        Allowing

in more places
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202001/msg00035.html (Eberlein, 28 January 2020)
- Kris; this is from an item brought up by a user. When we talked about it last week, we focused on whether we wanted to add d-c in more places. But I'm not sure where we left it wrt having a d-c directly within refbody; we hadn't opened up a bugfix ticket, so I"m just looking for more data.
1. do we move forward with making the d-c changes as a bugfix?
2. do we really need to have d-c directly within refbody?
- Kris; my sense is that it's probably allowed in all elements inside refbody.
- Zoe; but it shouldn't be directly inside refbody, because refbody doesn't allow for any child that isn't a large container.
- Gershon; I tend to agree; we should only allow block elements within refbody.
- Zoe; it allows for section, example, propertytable, + a prog language thingie...
- Kris; So the only justification would be if a user wanted to add draft-comment about one of the block elements within refbody that wouldn't easily allow d-c.
- Zoe; but you could add it within a section within refbody in that case.
- Kris; OK, does anyone object to moving forward without adding d-c to refbody?
[no objections; TC will add d-c to all missing locations except for refbody.]]



5. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals
Table notes
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00000.html (Stevens, 02 February 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00001.html (Bissantz, 03 February 2020)
- Deb; Dawn was asking if we want to consider creating table endnotes for table; people are creative about how they implement those, but there's no really clear standard way to do it.
- Dawn; it's a recurring issue with clients, where they do need table notes at the end of a table, with numbering that then resets with the next table. Sometimes they use an icon instead opf a number, but these are mostly numbered. We use an fn tag with an ancestor of 'table'to get the fn to be treated differently from other fns. It's a bit more effort from the stylesheet perspective, and it also confuses people because they're using the fn tag for 2 different purposes. We could just use a special kind of OL, in a final merged cell at the end of the table, but there are still real stylesheet issues. About 80% of my clients need table notes, as opposed to footnotes. so we're considering a tablenotes element designed for that purpose.
- Kris; anyone want to add anything?
- Deb; I've had some clients ilke Dawn's, and I now have someone using notes element for that purpose, so that was even more different.
- Kris; so if 85% of your clients have a requirement, and you're forced to use creative stylesheet methods, that would indicate a general need. One original conisderation for table was support among existing editors; that might be why we didn't augment table to begin with.
- Robert; that's why we left off table footers, but table footnotes would be more difficult; e.g., you might have to put them in a paragraph, in which case every single p element has to have one unless it's constrained out.
- Eric; do we have to be so specific? CALS has a tfoot
- Robert; CALS does but we're based on the CALS exchange model, which doesn't.
- Eliot; that's right; the exchange model stripped it out.
- Robert; in any case, tfoot wouldn't give us what we want.
- Dawn; but couldn't it be in the table entry, not in the p?
- Robert; just fyi, we also have something similar in syntaxdiagrams, a synnote element; let's you create a list of notes after a syntaxdiagram. But it's part of a domain specialization, so it's easy to isolate it there, We couldn't do it inside base table model.
- Eliot; the problem with that is if you need a real footnote within a table.
- Dawn; that's an edge case; we have dozens of clients who need one kind of footnote list after a table, but only one who needs two.
- Eliot; I can imagine someone needing both, but that's still not a standard situation.
- Scott; is there an @ to add to fn to specify whether it's an endnote or tablenote?
- Robert; only if that's non-standard like @outputclass, otherwise it starts to get a bit gross
- Eliot; you could generalize to an @ like 'footnote-scope'
- Robert; sounds clunky, there could be variable number of ancestor elements up the hierarchy from fn.
- Kris; but if so many users need it. we still need to do it.
- Eliot; I've needed it repeatedly.
- Nancy; as did I.
- Robert; but no one has asked for it from the Toolkit; it doesn't seem like that complicated a thing to add, from the toolkit perspective.
- Kris; so should it get fixed in the Toolkit, or from the TC?
- Dawn; I agree that it's relatively easy to do from stylesheet perspective, but if we're not doing the stylesheets, it get's complicated. The biggest issue is if you need both footnote and tablefootnotes.
- Robert; looking at definition of footnote; it certainly doesn't rule out this sort of usage; if there's an elegant way to say 'this is a table fn rather than an ordinary one', I wouldn't object.
- Eliot; we can either specialize it like endnote, or define an output class.
- Dawn; could we specialize, like synnote, rathar than force it to be an outputclass, in 2.0
- Kris; is synnote a child of syntaxdiagram, or alongside it?
- Robert; it's a child, you can put it anywhere, but since syntaxdiagram is itself specialized, what you put in it doesn't affect anything else; table is entirely different, since it's part of the base. If you created a specialized xref that you only wanted in table, it would be available in every table.
- Eliot; haven't we decided to relax inclusion rules for 2.0?
- Kris; no, just inclusion rules for @s, not for elements.
- Robert; you could do it and make it work, but it would violate our rules.
- Eliot; in RNG, we could use 'not allowed' mechanism.
- Robert; you could do it in DTDs as well; it's just not valid according to our DITA domain + constraint rules.
- Kris; where should we leave this for today? Do we need to give more thought to ways we could influence markup of table? Shall we say that we've talked and can't go any further? Are there more markup mechanisms we could use? Could we create a new element that is adjacent to table?
- Gershon; or should we just write a white paper with examples of how to deal with it.
- Robert; or given that most people use tools based on DITA-OT, you could ask OT folks to make this a processing option?
- Dawn; and I could give them a sample of what to include?
- Gershon; have we done this in the past, made OT changes instead of changing the spec?
- Robert; I'm not hearing that it's an edge case, so I'm surprised that no one's ever asked OT folks for it. We do have options for things like this, but we've just never heard about this before. If Brianna has a plugin that 'just does this', I can show you where to put it and then anyone can just use it.
- Kris; so shall we consider this to be a toolkit item? Dawn and Deb?
- Dawn; I'm fine with that, I didn't know the unfortunate implications of adding a new element to table, and we're fine with contributing our solution to the community.
- Deb; we just need to know what the recommended markup is to support that plugin.
- Dawn; that would be the part I don't have right now, we would have to document it.




6. Rules for nested conrefs within a conref push
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00004.html (Chris Trenkamp, forwarded to list by Eberlein, 04 February 2020)
- Kris; the poster wants to know what happens with nested conref pushes; the rules are clear with conref pull, but not push. It's been so long since I used conref push that I'm drawing a blank. Any thoughts?
- Eliot; I'm trying to understand what he's asking for...
- Kris; it's not easy to follow him.
- Robert; I think it comes down down to hash-dot syntax; what is that relative to? Does it resolve after the push, or before? I think it's resolved after the push. usually we think of it in terms of another xref, not another conref. But it should be the same rules as for pull.
- Kris; Robert, can you reply to the author on Github?
***ActionItem Robert will reply to user on Github (not on comment list)



7. Prep work for developing a strawman schedule for DITA 2.0
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00006.html (Eberlein, 04 February 2020)
- Kris; before I can do this, I need to build a list of work items; for one thing, we need a replacement for Alan Houser as DITA web coordinator. is there anyone who might be willing to take on this role?
- Nancy; how much time does it take?
- Kris; it depends on how many reviews we do; about 2 hrs/review, plus setting up accounts. troubleshooting, engaging with congility, etc.
- Kris; next thing, some proposals are really hard to implement. M
mostly, Robert has done these proposals that we've implemented, and most are straightforwasrd. That wasn't the case for the implementation of the multimedia domain, getting it into 1.3 and 2.0 would have been a mess. After that decision, we decided we wanted something that doesn't need to be 1.3 compatible.
- Carlos; I want to work on that one, but will need help once we get to stage 3. but I can tackle it up to stage 2.
- Kris; I'll be glad to hekp once you need technical assistance. Another proposal we need help with is #297, allow ?? in more places. We've approved it, but we can't implement it as authored; it has more implications for techcontent; and it probably need someone to do some re-development on the proposal. I'm looking for feedback from both Scott and Robert.
- Robert; I've looked at it; I know I pushed this particular item; the proposal is really notes on the implementation rather than the actual implementation. I don't like the idea of re-doing the proposal process; the technical details are clear, it's just that the implementation details are incomplete.
- Kris; I agree with your assesment; the implementation details are just not complete enough; I looked at it and started trying to figure out how to put it in, and realized it wasn't doable. I think the implementation details need to be worked out and tested. So do we push this back into stage 3?
- Robert; Scott, if you're able to implement it and hand it off. we don't want to go thru voting and approvals again,
- Kris; before we can implement it, we need clear implementation details, e.g.,what files need to be changed, and how, and in what order.
- Scott; I'll take it back and try to get that in; I may need to ping one of you if I need help.
- Kris; I've found that, where we're touching both base and techcontent, that's where I have to test locally, continuously.
- Kris; Also, we need to develop some freeze dates, by which all proposals must be completed, and sort proposals into categories of 'must have', 'nice to have', 'can fall off the table'. Then we need to have a freeze date for accepting new proposals.
- Scott; so, are we already closed?
- Kris; no, but we need to have dates; the freeze date is the most critical.



8. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DeadlinesDITA2.0
[updates only]
Stage three
(Schengili-Roberts) Strong and em elements (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/107)
27 January 2020 ?: Proposal to reviewers (Doherty, Evia)
Kris; Keith, do you have a new date?
keith; final Tues. of this month.
Kris; one reason we needed to push it back is that it needs to reflect content in 2.0 draft.
***ActionItem Kris will update upcoming deadline for proposal #107 to 2/25



12 noon ET close


-- Ms. Nancy Harrison

Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 4 February 2020

---

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: 2020-02-04 22:28:51