| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 20 October 2020 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:27:24 +0000 (UTC)
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 20 October 2020
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Gershon Joseph, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois, Dawn Stevens, Frank Wegmann, Jim Tivy
1. Roll call
Regrets: Carsten Brennecke, Scott Hudson
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
13 October 2020
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202010/msg00034.html (Harrison, 18 October 2020)
moved by Kris, 2nd by Eric, approved by TC
3. Announcements: none
4. Action items
[updates only; see agenda for complete list]
28 May 2019:
Chris, Kris: Look at draft-comment in spec WD03, section 126.96.36.199, page 210 IN PROGRESS
18 June 2019
Robert/Kris: Work on remaining stylesheet issues; see https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/stylesheetBacklog . IN PROGRESS
07 January 2020
Kris: Develop strawman schedule for DITA 2.0 work in 2020 In PROGRESS
5. Check-in: How are people doing in this difficult time? How is your state/country doing?
6. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
[updates only; see link above for complete list]
(Kimber) Deprecate or remove copy-to attribute (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/33)
12 October 2020: Reviewers return feedback
- Eliot; as per my email earlier, I have reviews, but will need a bit more time
(Eberlein) New element for key text (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/345)
- Kris; no progress this week
(Stevens) New diagnostic element for troubleshooting (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/316)
[vote today; see item #9]
7. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals
8. More cleanup items for 2.0? "Other" attributes on audience
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202010/msg00032.html (Anderson, 16 October 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202010/msg00033.html (Hudson, 16 October 2020)
- Robert; I was revisiting old issues, and noticed that the audience element has a bunch of @s, which originally had specified values, and so there was @othertype for user-defined values, In DITA 1.2 we made the values whatever you want, so @othertype no longer makes sense. The audience element description still lists those, and I fixed the wording, but we need to remove @othertype. Since folks might have used it, it needs tracking as well as fixing.
- Frank; it's pretty obvious this can go away, but how to handle it? Can we make the changes and make a note in migration note? without a complete -proposal?
- Robert; lt would break our process, since migration guide will be created from our list of proposals. But we could allow rapid implementation, i.e., could do a stage 2 and stage 3 proposal and vote on both at the same time.
- Kris; also, we could have 1 proposal for all cleanup stuff, and then consolidate everything.
- Nancy; let's do it all together.
- Robert; our error was that these didn't get deprecated originally.
- Frank; then we can set a final date, and anything before it goes on the list can go on it.
- Robert; or we could set up a status, when we think we're done with the spec, then we close this.
- Kris; i think it should be after the spec review, when there have been lots of eyes on the spec. I propose a wiki page to track these.
- Robert; I don't anticipate this being a long list; shall we put them on the deadlines page?
- Kris; I agree; let's track it on the deadlines page. We can't let it go on forever, but I think we'll find more as we review the spec. Objections to this plan?
9. Remove itemgroup?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202010/msg00036.html (Anderson, 19 October 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202010/msg00039.html (Joseph, 20 October 2020)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202010/msg00041.html (Wegmann, 20 October 2020)
- Robert; similar to agenda item #8 above; I was trying to edit the example for this, and realized I would never use it, I'd use div. If div had been in 1.0, we never would have created itemgroup, but until 1.3 there was resistance to a generic container like HTML's div. If we get rid of itemgroup, then all items specialized from it would be specialized from div, which is already possible. There's no other impact.
- Eliot; I agree; one possibility is redefining itemgroup as a specialization of div, but it's not a hig priority.
- Robert; I think we should get rid of it and not let it linger.
- Eliot; I agree.
- Kris; div makes itemgroup completely obsolete.
- Eliot; since itemgroup is a specialization base, no one should have been using it literally anyway.
- Robert; I'm sure people have done so... Until we had div it was useful. but migration path is really simple.
- Frank; I've seen it in use at our company, since this is coming from 1.2 and before, but it's not too difficult to migrate, so I'll advise our writers to use div instead.
- Robert; so this again would have been on list of deprecated stuff, does it require a separate proposal, or is it a fix?
- Kris; if we'd thought abuot it, we would have deprecated it. how much do we think that people will care whether we deprecated stuff, or if we just remove.
- Gershon; it's a major release and that's when you do this kind of stuff. as long as we document them, it's ok.
- Nancy; it's really whether people care about our process - separate proposals for each change, or consolidated ones - rather than whether it was deprecated or not.
- Frank; and we're putting out a migration guide in any case.
- Zoe; I'm a little fuzzy on how public things need to be outside OASIS; if we're going to put this on a wiki page, is there anyone out in the world who will want to see it?
- Robert; one way to make it easier, I could fill out both stage 2 & 3 aproposals and do it now, and we just don't close it till the end.
- Gershon; the only people who care early are the vendors, and even they won't really look at things till the first draft of the spec, rather than work on our working docs. they won't start too soon and have to backtrack.
- Robert; so I will start these proposals but treat them as approved by TC.
- Kris; I think we can just consider these as deprecated/bug fixes.
- Robert; I'll start the proposals and add them to wiki stuff.
- Stan; wrt 'is there anyone outside TC who cares', the charter of the Adoption TC means it cares.
- Kris; people do read CNs, so if it's in there, that will work.
9. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
#316 "Diagnostics element"
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202010/msg00042.html (Eberlein, 20 October 2020)
moved by Dawn, 2nd by Deb
yes votes 14 (Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Gershon Joseph, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Chris Nitchie, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois, Dawn Stevens, Frank Wegmann)
no votes 0
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202010/msg00030.html (Anderson, 15 October 2020)
- Robert; this is similar to cleanup items (above), but it's already written up now, already at stage 3, so we might as well keep it separate. We're removing this since we don't really know what it does that's diff from the data element.
Zoe; would it make sense to morph this into the catchall proposal we discussed above?
- Robert; no, since it's already at stage 3 and reviewed.
- Kris; any objections to voting on this next week?
[none, vote next week]
[discussion about Jim Tivy's question on enumerationdef. Jim argued for making changes to subjectscheme to allow for usage that would reduce translation issues. Kris agreed but both agreed that this couldn't be done in the 2.0 timeframe, and should be revisited in the 2.x timeframe.]
11:46 ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]