| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 18 February 2020 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<email@example.com>
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:49:30 +0000 (UTC)
1. Robert will respond to poster wrt rules for nested conrefs within a conref push
2. Kris will correct the example topic for Key definition with key reference
3. Robert will reply to poster wrt question on 'Key definition with key reference'
4. Carlos will look at 2-3 language ref topics for DITA elements that have MDITA/HDITA/XDITA (all 3) equivalents, and write down, in any format, the MDITA/HDITA content that is missing (XDITA content should already be there)
5. Kris will set up a call with Frank, Alan, Nancy, and herself to go over DITAWeb admin for TC
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday,18 February 2020
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Gershon Joseph, Eliot Kimber, Chris Nitchie, Eric Sirois, Robert Anderson, Jim Tivy, Frank Wegmann
1. Roll call
Regrets: Zoe Lawson, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Dawn Stevens
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
04 February 2020
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00008.html (Harrison, 05 February 2020)
moved by Kris, 2nd Scott, approved by TC
3. Action items
28 January 2020
Nancy: Respond to dita-users thread, with explanation of what SVG and mathML domains are for, to encourage more informed response
- Kris; please respond
- Nancy; ok
4. GitHub feedback
a. What are the rules for nested conrefs within a conref push?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00004.html (Eberlein, 04 February 2020)
New https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00009.html (Eberlein, 05 February 2020)
- Robert; the poster hae conref push inside of conkeyref and wanted to know 'how does it resolve?' My off-the-cuff answer was; you resolve the push and it pushes something there. But when I started writing this up on response, I realized it could put an impossible constraint on some processors, because it would mean you always have to resolve the outer condition first, and that may not be doable. We don't have a rule about that, so it's not something that there's an easy answer for; I thought I did, but it's not the case. so that's what I ended up posting on Github.
- Kris; so we've got markup permitted in the spec, and someone asking 'how would it work in this condition' and we don't really have an answer. Where should we go with this?
- Eliot; I worked thru the sequence of procesing tasks in order to do DITA 1.3 processing correctly. posted that in the DITA-OT wiki, not sure that I considered the implications of nested conrefpush.
- Robert; if you have something that gets pulled in, you can't resolve it until after; you have to process from the outside, but that's not always practical, so I don't know how to make it work.
- Eliot; the way DITA-OT has been architected hasn't been done to completely enable every 1.2 and 1.3 feature. Most of the cases where it doesn't work are edge cases, so it's not a real problem, and making it do the right thing would be a huge amount of work.
- Kris; the real issue is, given this edge case in markup, what should the spec say?
- Chris; since we're going to need to talk about processing order, we should put hold for now and talk about it then. For now, it's ambiguous from the point of the spec.
- Kris; I'd agree with that. Robert, can you respond to the poster saying just that?
- Robert; yes, 'it's ambiguous' is the real answer.
- Kris; and stay posted for 2.0...
***ActionItem: Robert will respond to poster
b. Is the "Example: Key definition with key reference" page correct?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00022.html (ChrisTrenkamp, 18 February 2020, forwarded by Eberlein)
- Robert; this is also an edge case. He's right; the spec isn't correct. The example in keydef says you take href from original definition, which would make sense for conref, but with keydef and keyrefs, when you have keyref and href, href is the fallback. In the example, the href should win. It really is an edge case, but still a good point.
- Eliot; I agree.
- Chris; also agree.
***ActionItem: Kris will correct this example topic
***ActionItem: Robert will reply to poster
5. Update/request from the LwDITA subcommittee
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00011.html (Evia, 06 February 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00012.html (Eberlein, 06 February 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00013.html (Michael Priestley, 06 February 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00014.html (Eberlein, 06 February 2020)
- Carlos; my original message reflects the condition of LwD SC. SC hasn't advanced in our job, which was to produce a spec. And my actual job has changed in last year, making me much busier, so nothing happened. LwD has been received well in the world, e.g. support for it in Oxygen, but there's no spec, and people need something that looks like a spec. We need more support from the TC.
- Kris; my POV is that the TC set reasonable expectations, I don't know what more we can do. and I don't think there's a way to circumvent it.
- Carlos; Michael's suggestion was that, since for many people LwD means MDITA, he proposed that we create a new CN that formalizes MDITA. But I think that's just another obstacle to producing a spec. because I'm the only person who will do it, so it would be another thing in the way of the spec. Is there a workflow that we can use to start writing a spec? I don't think it
- Kris; when you talk about separating specs, do you mean separating XDITA, HDITA, MDITA?
- Carlos; no, Alan talked about putting out something on LwD that would be separate from regular DITA, I disagrre with that. If we don't have enough hands to produce a spec within the SC, I can only rely on the TC. So we need a workflow.
- Nancy; so is what you want a description of the workflow/structure for creating langref topics, to help you understand how to work on the spec?
- Carlos; yes
- Kris; I don't think that's really the sticking point; the topics themselves already exist, and the XDITA content has already been added. I think the s. p. is more along the lines of doing high-level work on figuring out what to say about XDITA and HDITA. My suggestion was to take 3 DITA elements that are used in LwD, and figure out what you need to say about them from LwD perspective.
- Carlos; prototyping is not happening because doing that exceeded the limit of my design capabilities.
- Kris; I don't think that's a workflow issue, I think it's an IA issue.
- Carlos; it starts with AI, but then it goes to the process.
- Kris; I think you judt need to start adding content for element ref. topics; start by just producing a couple of topics for the langref.
- Nancy; so is the idea for Carlos to start with regular DITA topics and add MDITA, HDITA info?
- Kris; last summer, I added XDITA info to all relevant DITA topics, so that's already done.
- Nancy; so he simply needs to look at those and add MDITA, HDITA info?
- Carlos; I have concerns about understanding how to structure what I add.
- Kris; you can add info in any format; doesn't have to be in precise DITA structure; once we have content, the TC can help with structure.
- Kris; are there people in TC who might be intereested in working on the LwD SC? We haven't typically seen spec work coming out of SCs, except for L&T, and that was all done by John Hunt.
- Chris; we're running into the same thing Jarno's been complaining about; there's lot's of industry interest in DITA, but no industry investment.
- Kris; I totally agree with that, wrt both DITA TC/SC work and DITA OT. Any other thoughts?
- Stan; one observation; how do we balance spec work with industry adoption work? With LwD, people are adopting DITA features before we have a spec for them.
- Carlos; we were excited and flattered that people were so interested in LwD; so we'd respond to people's questions, but that's where all the energy went. So while we were helping specific cases, there was no energy for spec work.
- Chris; it's the age-old conundrum; everyone wants to work on implementation, but not documentation.
- Gershon; I agree; HTML has diverged in many ways from its spec, The HTML spec would get written after features were implemented. Do you really want LwD standard to be ready at the same time as 2.0? or do you think it could follow 2.0?
- Carlos; it would be good for them to come out at the same time, but I don't know if this can happen...
- Kris; I'm glad we're having this discussion at TC level. I think the next LwD work item is to actually get down, in any format - paper or electronic - what you want to say about MDITA and HDITA, for a couple of elements. How can TC help you with that?
- Carlos; sounds like a task; I think the TC can help
- Nancy; Can you provide content so we can help with the structure?
- Kris; Can you just put down the MDITA/HDITA info that is missing?
- Carlos; I just need to structure it...
- Kris; you don't need to structure it, just write it in anything; we have a structure, with definitions of what each structure should contain. We're collecting rendering/formatting info in an appendix; Just get some content down on [electronic] paper, and we can help with IA and design suggestions. If anyone has add'l thoughtsm, that's what the email list is for.
***ActionItem: Carlos will look at 2-3 language ref topics for DITA elements that have MDITA/HDITA/XDITA (all 3) equivalents, and write down, in any format, the MDITA/HDITA content that is missing (XDITA content should already be there)
6. A Systematic Way to Describe Non-Computer Controls (Relating to "Hardware Control Domain")
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202002/msg00010.html (Schengili-Roberts, 05 February 2020)
[On hold until Keith and Zoe Lawson are present]
7. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
(Nitchie) Add titlealts elements to map (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/16)
(./) 16 February 2019: New stage two proposal to reviews (Anderson, Eberlein, Frank Wegmann)
- Kris; Chris, thanks for sending out updated propsal; when can all reviewers return feedback? I can do it by 2/25
- Robert; also 2/25
- Frank; I'll try to do that date as well.
- Chris; I won't actually get to work on it till the weekend after I get the response, so deadline for response is really Fri., 2/28.
8. Continuing item: 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
a. Kris; Frank has volunteered to be new DITAWeb coordinatior. We need to set up a call with Frank, myself, and Alan, so Alan can transfer his knowledge about do this. Is there anyone else willing to either volunteer, or learn enough about the system so they could help out at some point?
- Nancy; I can.
***ActionItem: Kris will set up a call with Frank, Alan, Nancy, and herself
b. Kris; we need to decide on 2 dates:
1. date when all proposals need to be completed
2. date for when no new proposals will be accepted
- We need to look at what proposals are out there at stage 1 and maybe stage 2. For each one, we have to evaluate whether it's must have, nice to have, or can fall off the table. For me, the only must haves are multimedia domain, and attribute flexibility; hovering in between must and nice is something about metadata.
***ActionItem: ALL look at proposals in stage 1, decide on what category each falls into.
- Kris; also, look at dates; I'd like to see all items completed by summer.
- Chris; any new ones?
- Gershon; mine on new publication map; I've collected all the data and I'm trying to make sense of that, so I can put it itno a stage 1 proposal.
- Kris; for evaluating proposals, take a look at what's in the Github project page; look at 1st & 2nd columns; those are the ones we'll sort into categories next week.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]