dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 1 September 2020 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 00:00:43 +0000 (UTC)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Kris will update proposal to apply Carlos's review comments wrt proposal #351 (Add multimedia elements to base)
2. Kris will update the proposal on removing deprecated items to include any missing items, including .
3. Kris and Robert will ping dita-users on use of data-about element.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 1 September 2020
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Attendance:
Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, ershon Joseph, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Eric Sirois, Dawn Stevens, Frank Wegmann, Jim Tivy
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Scott Hudson, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
25 August 2020
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202009/msg00010.html (Lawson, 01 September 2020)
[hold till next week]
3. Announcements
none
4. Action items
[updated items only; complete list in agenda]
25 August 2020
Carlos: Develop review schedule for LwDITA spec
- Kris; any progress?
- Carlos; call yesterday; nobody protested our resolution from last week, so I'll go forward with that.
- Kris; i'll go forward with our schedule to make sure things mesh.
5. Check-in: How are people doing in this difficult time? How is your state/country doing?
[no official business discussed]
6. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
[updates only; see link below for current list]
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DeadlinesDITA2.0
Stage two
(Eberlein) New element for key text (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/345)
?: Proposal to reviewers (Chris, Carsten)
?: Initial TC discussion
?: TC vote
Stage three
(Stevens) New diagnostic element for troubleshooting (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/316)
31 August 2020: Proposal to reviewers (Sirois, Harrison)
?: Initial discussion by TC
?: TC vote
- Dawn; I'm almost done, should be finished today. The spec section in 30.10.4 needs a new example; the example that's there has to be completely rewritten.
- Kris; so we'll update 8/31 -> 9/2; post to the TC list if you get stuck; other TC folks can often help.
(Eberlein) New multimedia elements for base (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/351)
(./) 22 August 2020: Proposal to reviewers (Carlos, Chris)
(./) 31 August 2020: Feedback received from reviewers
(./) 01 September 2020: Initial discussion by TC
[see agenda item #8b below]
(Anderson) Split syntaxdiagram from programming domain (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/361)
(./) 24 August 2020: Early feedback from TC
(./) 24 August 2020: Proposal to reviewers (Nitchie, Bissantz, Wegmann)
(./) : Initial discussion by TC
[see agenda item #8a below]
7. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals
Initial discussion
#33 Remove copy-to
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00040.html (Kimber, 25 August 2020)
[hold till Eliot is on call]
8. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
Initial discussion
a. #X: Split syntaxdiagram from programming domain
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00049.html (Anderson, 31 August 2020)
- Robert; we want to split this so it can be more easily removed from shells without needing constraints. A change from previous discussion is that we're including synph with syntaxdiagram in the proposal. One question we had was the domain name; should it be short (syn-d) or long (syntaxdiagram-d)? We decided to go with long, so we'll use syntaxdiagram-d so everyone can understand it.
- Kris; do you have reviewers?
- Robert; yes, Deb and Frank.
- Kris; any questions or comments?
- Frank; I brought up the question of long/short domain names, I had just wondered why change from long to short has to be made; now that it's been considered and explained, I;m fine with the long one.
- Robert; and that issue was worth a discussion, I can see why the question was raised.
- Kris; it was a good catch, since it represents an area of inconsistency between 1.0 -1.3 domain names. Zoe, was hardware domain hw-d, but then it became hardware-d?
- Zoe; I'd ahve to look it up.
- Kris; easiest way to check is go to completed proposals on wiki page.
b. #351: Add multimedia elements to base
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202009/msg00009.html (Eberlein, 01 September 2020)
Early feedback
None
- Kris; Chris gave this proposal a very solid review, which led to changes; e.g. I removed default values for autoplay and media b/c we had, in text of topic 'when not specified.....', snd specifying values undercut that. Also, some draft-comments were removed; email was sent to TC about the items Chris raised and I removed some other text he raised question about because configuration was handled via elements, and for this version of the proposal, control of presentation has been moved to be through @s instead of elements. In summary, the proposal adds audio, video, media and mediasource to DITA base.
- Zoe; I did notice that somewhere there's a DTD that's spelled DITD.
- Carlos; I mentioned that too, in my review.
- Kris; so I need to go back and apply Carlos's review comments. Any other questions or comments?
[none, vote next week]
***ActionItem: Kris will update proposal to apply Carlos's review comments.
9. Deprecated item in grammar files - nbsp
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00043.html (Anderson, 27 August 2020)
- Robert; this has been listed as deprecated since 1.1, but since it's only in the DTD version of the grammar files, it never got included in our list of 'to-be-deprecated' 2.0 stuff. So we should add it to that list and remove it. One issue with it has been that some parsers have problems with . We may might want to remove all deprecated stuff and include a note about all of them in the 2.0 spec.
- Kris; I think this is the cleanest step going forward. I'll add missing 'to-be-deprecated' items to our list of deprecated stuff, then we'll vote on this next week. Robert, should we do another vote? I'd rather not go thru the entire proposal procedure.
- Robert; it makes sense to re-vote, but this is the discussion, so we can vote on it next week.
- Kris; I don't want to get bogged down in process issues, but we need to make sure we note all backwards-incompatibility issues, so that they get included in the migration doc. any questions or comments?
[none]
- Kris; I'll update the proposal on removing deprecated items, and we'll vote on the change next week.
***ActionItem: Kris will update the proposal on removing deprecated items to include any missing items, including .
[vote next week]
10. Long or short tokens for domains?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00049.html (Anderson, 31 August 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202009/msg00001.html (Joseph, 01 September 2020)
[from 9]
- Kris; this seems to have had a good discussion online; any other comments?
- Zoe; how often do you have to type these things?
- Robert; only when you're writing a processor.
- Kris; or developing style sheets.
- Zoe; and the hardware domain is using a short name.
- Dawn; while i appreciate that it's inconsistent, I don't want to go back and change existing ones.
- Kris; I agree, we don't want to change old ones; I think some short tokens were relatively intuitive, but we can't really come up with short intuitive names for syntaxdiagram and ditavalref...
- Zoe; also, a style thing; people are rarely typing these names by hand; they're mostly selecting or using autocomplete, and space is now cheap, so we don't have to keep things short.
- Robert; that's right, we discussed those names in DITA 1.0, and that's why we abbreviated then, but we don't need to now.
- Kris; I'm a fan of verbosity, so folks can understand them easily.
- Zoe; I agree, and am leaning toward more verbosity as we go forward, but I don't see a reason to go back and change old things.
- Kris; any objections or concerns?
- Frank; not from me; but having seen the shorter intuitive names, as long as the abbreviation is instantly recognizable, I'm good with what we're doing.
- Kris; so we'll use short ones if they;re immediately recognizable. objections to a vote on this next week?
[none, vote next week]
11. Key resolution, key text, and local fallback
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202009/msg00007.html (Eberlein, 01 September 2020)
[on hold till Chris is here]
12. type attr, keydef element, and multimedia elements
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202009/msg00008.html (Eberlein, 01 September 2020)
[on hold till Chris is here]
13. Session for Adobe DITA World 2020
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202009/msg00012.html (Eberlein, 01 September 2020)
- Kris; I've been asked to do a session for this; do folks have thoughts on what might be a helpful session to do? Robert and I have done these, and they've tended to be 'what's coming in upcoming releases.' I could do that again, but was wondering, for folks who've participated in this conference, what they think might work. Is that the best use of DITA TC session time? If no response, I'll do the same as usual; otherwise, I might do something similar to the retrospective on DITA that I'm doing forthe CONVEX.
- Carlos; that's a good point. A lot of people don't know what DITA is; what's the standard, and how is it different from the tools (Oxygen, Frame) or from DITA-OT.
- Kris; I hadn't thought about that possibility till it came out of my mouth just now. I think 'what is DITA' might be a better topic for that audience.
- Robert; and there's not a lot new to report on updates that didn't get mentioned last year.
- Kris; Dawn, what about reprising my CONVEX stuff for DITA World?
- Dawn; ordinarily, we would require a delay of 6 months, but because we moved our event, I removed that requirement.
- Kris; so that's what I'll do; maybe 'DITA, where art thou?" And I might ask for help from other TC members.
14. Wondering how many people use the data-about element
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202009/msg00013.html (Anderson, 01 September 2020)
- Robert; I was wondering why we still have that element; it went in at 1.2, related to subjectscheme, but I don't know if it was ever used. I've never used it.
- Kris; I've never used it; I don't even understand it.
- Eric; I may have one client who used it, but I'm not sure.
- Robert; the current description is so hard to understand that I'm not sure how anyone could understand it.
- Eric; I think that's how it's used, if it is used, as a 'loose' element that doesn't seem to have a real use, so folks use it when they need an element that doesn't exist.
- Kris; Simon Bates at Scriptorium uses it for something, but I think the way Eric just described; e.g., 'oh, an element that's not being used, I can use it.'
- Dawn; the example showed me what it's supposed to do, but I don't know that it's really useful.
- Robert; just like data, data-about can go almost anywhere. I almost always hide that element.
- Kris; do we want to consider removing this element? Is there anything it provides that you can't do with data? And if we want to take it out, should we check with dita-users to see if anyone is using it?
- Robert; if no one's using it, it would be nice to get rid of it, and 2.0 is the time to do it.
- Kris; if we can't create a clear, understandable reference topic, we have a problem with the element. I've never been able to get a satisfactory topic ref description for this element.
- Zoe; I've stumbled into it when I'm trying to find an element to abuse... getting rid of it wouldn't be a problem. Unless someone on dita-users has a real problem with removing it, it's worth removing.
- Kris; right; this is our only opportunity to remove things; gen'l consensus seems to be remove it. Do we want to do the dita-users check?
- Stan; it doesn't take that much time, and it's a nice courtesy.
- Kris; any objections to pinging dita-users?
[none]
***ActionItem: Kris and Robert will ping dita-users on this.
15. DITA then and now (Continued)
How well do you think DITA has lived up to its early claims?
Has it addressed problems that it was designed to solve?
Have other problems emerged?
How is the landscape different now than it was in 2004?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00010.html (Eberlein, 18 August 2020)
NEW https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202008/msg00012.html (Bissantz, 20 August 2020)
- Carlos; just fyi; I can't see your presentation for CONVEX; I can see others, but yours isn't loading.
- Kris; please mull over my presentation, wrt about how I might want to adopt it for a different augience at DITA World. Basic idea is 1) DITA is a standard, not a tool, and 2) the difference between DITA and DITA-OT, etc. Robert has a good set of DITA vs. DITA-OT slides.
16. Committee note: "Migrating to DITA 2.0
- Kris; Zoe, are you prepared to talk about this?
- Zoe; I started looking at it. My major stumbling block is how to split it between different flavors of DITA. In my brain, techComm is part of DITA; I use it all the time. With them being split, I'm stumbling over how I approach that migration. I would want to do the entire migration in one pass, and I don't have the user experience in either specializing or migration. Suggestions welcome...
- Kris; Zoe, you need help on this CN, You shouldn't be the sole author. We need someone who has more experience in implementation to work on organizing how to migrate. Also, we might release this CN many times, in many versions. Especially, it would be good to get out a list of what's being removed in 2.0 soon; people should know what's being removed asap.
- Nancy; in any case, anyone who's using techComm will want to wait till the techCommm profile is out before they migrate to 2.0.
- Robert; right, no one wants to make changes for base, and goes back and do changes in techComm. And that should be a preface in the base version of the CN; 'this is for base only, if you're using techComm, CN will be republished again when techComm 2.0 is released.'
- Kris; so do we need the following versions of the CN? 1) preparing for DITA 2.0, where we talk about backwards invompatibilities and fixes for removals, and 2) Migrating to 2.0, once 2.0 is actually released.
- Robert; for the most part, if something's deprecated, users can prepare for that now. For grammar changes, they have to wait. I've been steering folks towards getting rid of deprecated things, but I'm not sure it's worth it...
- Kris; I've gotten rid of clients deprecated stuff as much as possible, to help them minimize what they have to do to get to 2.0. So the direction is that the CN needs to be released multiple times, and it needs to cover both base and techComm. Assumption is that most techComm users won't go to 2.0 till techComm 2.0 is out. Is there a use case for a preparation CN, so folks can see what they can do now, and what they shouldn't be introducing into their content? For example, @s like @alt, @navtitle, @xtrc, @xtrf; many folks use these, but they're going away at 2.0.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]