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: Re: Not timely minutes for August 25, 2020

Revisions from Carlos incorporated below.
  • Fixed LwDITA spec authors from Chris to Kris
  • Removed side comment
  • Fixed wrong product name

From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Zoe Lawson <zoelawson17@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:20 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [dita] Not timely minutes for August 25, 2020
Apologies for the delay. I am not Nancy.


Roll call: Zoë Lawson, Dawn Stevens, Kris Eberlein, Eliot Kimber, Chris Nitchie, Robert Anderson, Gershon Joseph, Frank Wegmann, Carlos Evia, Deb Bissantz

Regrets: Carsten Brennecke, Nancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Keith Schengili-Roberts
Approve minutes from previous business meeting:

18 August 2020
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00011.html (Harrison, 20 August 2020)
> Kris moves to accept Eliot seconds
No objections, minutes are approved.

> Dawn - we should all have logins for ConVex, please check it out.

Action items

- 28 May 2019: Eberlein sent "nag e-mail" on 14 October 2019 about these three action items
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 Kris: Look at draft-comment in spec WD03, section, 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
- 07 January 2020: Kris: Develop strawman schedule for DITA 2.0 work in 2020 In PROGRESS
- 28 July 2020: Kris: Add grammar file changes for stage 3 Hardware domain to SVN COMPLETED >

Check-in: How are people doing in this difficult time? How is your state/country doing?
Various pleasantry

Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines

DITA 2.0 stage two proposals
(Kimber) Deprecate or remove copy-to attribute (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/33)
>> - Thank you.
Eliot 2 years over due...

(Eberlein) New element for key text (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/345)
Not yet.

Stage three
(Nitchie) Loosen attribute specialization rules (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/15)
Feedback in process

(Nitchie) Add title alts to map (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/16)
Gated by progress (or lack thereof) on stage two proposal for "New element for key text"

(Lawson) Hardware domain (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/257)
(Vote today)

(Stevens) New diagnostic element for troubleshooting (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/316)
>> Moved. In progress asking lots of questions (dawn)

(Eberlein) New multimedia elements for base (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/351)
> Kris - in progress, posted to list.
>> Chris - this week
>> Carlos hoping to be done by Friday.
>> Kris will add Monday 8/31 for deadline

(Anderson) Split syntax diagram from programming domain (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/361)
>> Kris, there are now questions...so shifted date
>> Robert Anderson if we can discuss today, can finish up.

Initial discussion
#33 Remove copy-to
>> Kris - not sure you included my review comments.
Eliot Kimber - All my changes were in response to your comments.
Kris - didn't look like there were revisions.
Eliot Kimber - maybe a misunderstanding. Possible posted wrong version.
Kris - please highlight what you changed. Maybe Robert or Chirs N. have comments.
Eliot Kimber - Change was not technical. Reworked initial requirement statement. Now a <dl> with more explanation. Added an example.
Kris - You must have posted back level HTML.
Eliot Kimber - Oops.
?? - the PDF is good.
Eliot Kimber - to remove copy-to attribute.
Was supposed to solve, what to do when you want to have multiple copies of a topic, and you want to link to specific versions of that .
You would set @copy-to="topic1-a" so you could link to topic1-a.dita, and the DITA-OT would link to topic1-a.html.
(wrong files posted)
Kris - should we move this to next week? We've all picked the wrong output folder. (and hope the new version has Kris as a reviewer)
Eliot Kimber - I will take care of that.

DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
#257 Add hardware domain
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00031.html (Lawson, 24 August 2020)
Kris - will make motion since I'm typing to approve stage three.
Dawn seconds.
Zoe - yes
dawn - yes
kris - yes
Eliot Kimber - yes
chris nichie - yes
Robert Anderson - yes
gershon - yes
frank v - yes
carlos e - yes
deb b - yes

And there was much rejoicing...
Kris - congrats
Z - thanks for help with grammar files.

Early feedback
#361 Syntax diagram domain
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00026.html (Anderson, 24 August 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00027.html (Kimber, 24 August 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00028.html (Eberlein, 24 August 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00030.html (Anderson, 24 August 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00034.html (Joseph, 25 August 2020)

Robert Anderson - seemed easy, but then it's harder.
thought could move syntaxdiagram into a separate domain.
however, this includes synph and all it's children.
1. keep synph and all its kids in programming
2. move both synph and syntaxdiagram to own domain.
To the group - 1 or 2?
Eliot K, Gershon, Kris, 2 is easier.

Kris - one key question - does anyone know of any implementations that use synph w/o syntaxdiagram elsewhere. Mostly silence...
Zoe - only by accident.
Robert Anderson - agrees. Does have an odd syntax which may make it odd for folks to try to use.
Kris - most of the TC thinks 2, but should we poll dita-users?
Robert Anderson - would prefer making decision and moving forward. Eliot's comment was that it's probably fine.
Kris - yeah, let's not ask. too little and tweaky.
Robert Anderson - second question. Should syntax domain be a specialization of the programming domain, or should it be an independent domain that requires the programming domain?
Kris - Robert, do you have a preference?
Robert Anderson - No preference/coin toss, leaning towards specialization.
Dawn - feels cleaner to call it a specialization
Robert Anderson - Troubleshooting is similar - it requires task, but doesn't use task.
Kris - provides a good example of specialization.
Robert Anderson - Some weird quirky thing
Chris n - We should discuss someday (not for 2.0) about how to use domains, how to specialize, how to reference things...
Eliot Kimber - we had that in the domain attributes, but even we didn't know how to use it.
Chris Nitchie - Could you say this requires vs is child?
Robert Anderson - yeah, you could but required a translation from the spec.
<confusing discussion I didn't quite follow >
Chris Nitchie - likes the idea of npm json easy to read stuff to list dependencies.
Kris - bookmap needed mapgroup.
Robert Anderson - have answers to finish proposal
Kris - is suggestion good for 2.0?
Chris Nitchie - absolutely not. :-)

Update from LwDITA DITA subcommittee

Committee note: "Migrating to DITA 2.0
Spec work completed

Carlos - LWDITA is as bakes as it's going to be. Already being used, tools are implementing it.
Kris, Alan, Carlos wrote up in paper...
Issue is there is no Spec.
There are lot of wheels spinning in sub-committee, but not leading towards a spec.
Yeah, content is never "done"...but we need a spec.
there was a time without new faces, now there are new faces, with their idea.
Changes have been made, that potentially are breaking it.
Depend on 2.0 grammar files, and need to stay compatible.

Can continue creating new LWDITA ideas, but need to finalize spec.

Do we need to split? LwDITA becomes a place for innovation, beyond making the 1.0 spec.

LwDITA is healthy, there is implementation and adoption, already in ConVex presentations. (aka Markdown DITA)

Need a spec before monster creates more heads...

Convergence of editoral teams to make a spec whether or not it's separate or a child of 2.0.

Kris - the proposal is really to move the spec work to the main TC group instead of the sub-committee.
This means there would be to-dos, deadlines, etc.

Carlos - There has been some review of some of the existing draft, but not really moving forward.

Kris - okay, concerns?

The intent is git er dun. Get something written and get it approved.
It's been around for a long time and needs to be wrapped up (along with DITA 2.0)

Frank - About reviews. Is it TC only? is it supplementary to subcommittee.

Kris - our reviews have never been confined to voting members. Subcommittee members are TC members.
We've also brought in people outside of OASIS for reviews (e.g. Jarno and Oxygen folks)
Not general public, save that for public review.

Frank - thanks that makes sense

Deb - Good idea, is this how we would handle the Tech Comm portion as well?

Kris - very much so, since there isn't a tech comm subcommittee. Maybe with more work from TC since there is no subcommitteee.
Please learn how to use git.

Dawn - The intent is that all (dita 2.0 , lwdita, techcomm) goes at the same time? Does that impact timelines?

Robert Anderson - excellent question.
May be a bit of overload of work. so, can't promise they all go at the same time, would like, but most likely not feasible.

Kris - Can't promise. Probably need to do DITA 2.0 first, then the others a bit later.
Kris and Robert Anderson can't promise to be actively involved more, just due to work loads.
May need to plea for more help/responsibility.
Robert, does that address your concerns.

Robert Anderson - yes. Wish we could do it all at once, but it's a lot of work. Focus on base first, then the rest.

Chris Nitchie - with bandwidth, OASIS overhead, etc., simultaneous release is going to be very difficult. Advocates for explicitly saying they will be separate so folks are prepared.
Let's have drafts of the additional specs available at the 2.0 time, but can't promise.

Kris - explicitly can't promise, because who knows what happens with public review.
The only thing we can promise is that DITA 2.0 will come first.

Chris Nitchie - Level of public interest in LwDITA may be more than DITA 2.0, so it could be lively.

Robert Anderson - everyone has already been using LwDITA, so no you can't change it...
Carlos - Adobe already supports...

Chris Nitchie - Concerned that early prototypes stuff is clearly marked so that folks don't go too far into the weeds.

Carlos - yes, need to reign in soon before things get too nutty in LwDITA 1.0

Kris - Agree. Won't be adding anything new to LwDITA. Same that was approved in Committee Note, with fixes or things to stay in sync with DITA 2.0. Shouldn't add anything new.

Carlos - seems fair.

Chris Nitchie - Agree, as long as that's explicitly understood. There may be things coming out of sub-committee that are cool, but may not be in the spec, so beware.

Carlos - Can no longer make xsd changes because need dita 2.0 stuff.

Kris - we are close to closing up DITA 2.0, so yes, this is the time to draw line in sand. Carlos, we will be asking you to help herd the cats for LwDITA 1.0. Anything new will be experimental
and clearly indicated as such.

Carlos - do it!

Kris - everyone good?

ACTION ITEM  - Carlos, please make a schedule of review work of LwDITA spec.

Carlos will bring to sub-committee and talk on Monday call.

Kris - recommend you develop the schedule yourself, not via committee. Clearly communicate what is happening.

DITA then and now (Continued)

Last topic for last 10 minutes
Kris - open the floor. Deb - please go over your email.

Deb - Friend pointed to blog from LinkedIn. Michael Priestly responded. Possibly confusing DITA with a CMS.
People have a misunderstanding that DITA is a specification, not a TOOL or Software or CMS.

Robert Anderson - Not a product on its own. People want a shrink-wrapped thing, and DITA ain't that. Product goes around dita.

Kris - this is a blog post written by kentico "Why you should ditch DITA and adopt headless instead"

Carlos - Possibly there was a proposal (RFP) to go against a DITA CCMS

Kris responded on Twitter. Some comments are very fair and accurate. DITA isn't the right solution for everything, neither is headless.
Not quite sure what headless is.

Robert Anderson - Jarno and others responded on Twitter - these are apples and oranges. Your theory doesn't make sense.

Kris - Kantico can't use reuse by reference.

Carlos - doesn't really make sense.

Eliot Kimber - Headless is a CMS that's API only.

Robert Anderson - Jarno said well, can't I just do that and serve DITA? Well, yes, but...

Carlos - EasyDITA does this.

Eliot Kimber - Users need some UI for interacting with content. So, how does this help?
Remember getting into a big argument with Documentum how never would want to use proprietary interface...which has diddly to do with headless...

Thank you, will pick up next week

 (link posted by Zoë into the chat that seemed appropriate: https://xkcd.com/2347/)

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