| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 4 May 2021 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<email@example.com>
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 05:54:30 +0000 (UTC)
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 4 May 2021
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Gershon Joseph, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois, Dawn Stevens, Frank Wegmann, Jim Tivy
1. Roll call
Regrets: Chris Nitchie
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
20 April 2021
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202104/msg00015.html (Harrison, 22 April 2021)
Moved by Kris, 2nd by Eric, aprroved by TC
4. Action items
[no updates; see agenda for complete list]
5. Check-in: How are people doing in this difficult time? How is your state/country doing?
[no official business covered]
6. Report back from ConVEx 2021
[TC attendees: Zoe, Dawn, Eliot, Keith, Scott Carlos, Deb, Frank,
- Kris; general impressions?
- Zoe; biggest problem was not being able to watch presentations ahead of time, because of lack of time...
- Kris; spent most time listening to main stage panel.
- Keith; meant to listen to live material, but work got in the way way... I got a lot out of last years conference through going back and watching videos afterwards; the conference that keeps giving...
- Scott; there were several presentations / panels on 2.0; Dawn, any feedback yet on those?
- Dawn; not yet a lot of feedback on specific sessions, we're still trying to figure out who went to what, still waiting for numbers.
- Zoe; I really liked keynote and endnote speakers; both timely and useful.
- Scott; fantastic keynote speaker David Dylan Thomas.
- Kris; absolutely wonderful; I caught most of his talk in slack channel.
- Zoe; especially like the keynote arguments with accessibility; simple things like getting rid of 'yucky' words. It was about getting content more correct, not just being inclusive for sake of being inclusive; e.g., 'think about your phrasing more; your questions frame your answers.'
- Kris; that was the key for me; youll get the conversation you -design; how you frame it affects the user's response. I've already ordered his book, "Designing for Cognitive Bias."
- Zoe; he also gave a nice list of all the things he reads and referenced. in googledocs. There's a link to vtaiwan, with an article on how how Taiwanese gov't worked with Uber on 'crowdsourced' content; how do we solve a problem by getting diverse people to work together and find compromise.
- Kris; I got a bunch of postivive feedback from my conversation on contours of DITA 2.0.
- Nancy; did you get feedback on what will be in 2.0?
- Kris; not much, occasional 'cool feature', or complaints...
- Zoe; only question I can remember was 'what's in the hardware domain?'
- Scott; there was a fair amount of interest in migration guide.
- Zoe; yeah, I got reinspired wrt migration guide listening to comments about 2.0.
- Dawn; I appreciating your participation. all I do is facilitate. We're getting very good feedback; still have to figure out things with vendors, but hopefully next year will be live...???
- Deb; Dawn, will you have statistics and metrics?
- Dawn; yes, eventually...
- Zoe; the exhibit hall is still open, you can go and download stuff from there.
7. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
[both on agenda today; see agenda item #8]
(Nitchie, Eberlein) Loosen attribute specialization rules (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/15)
(Kimber) Deprecate or remove copy-to attribute (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/33)
04 May 2021: Initial discussion by TC
11 May: TC vote
8. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202105/msg00001.html (Kimber, 03 May 2021)
- Eliot; so proposal was to remove it, but the issue is 'how do you get the result ie used to produce without it?' So we added semantics to resourceid element, which now goes in both topics and topicrefs; that indicates how the author wants the topic/topicref to be known in context of a particulat application. So authors can say; this is what I want things to be known as. We had to add one attribute, @appid-role, to distinguish between context-sensitive help from other apps, or a deliverable more generally.
- Kris; was @appid new?
- Eliot; no it's always been there.
- Kris; it says new @appid?
- Eliot; no, it's new @appid-role; appid was already there, and the only defined value for @appid-role is 'deliverable-anchor'.
- Robert; I'm looking at the PDF; the text looks correct there.
- Eliot; so @appid-role lets @appid take its original legacy role, but otherwise can be for more general case. so that left ditavalref. It has 2 subelements that were added in 1.2 - dvrResourcePrefix/Suffix. We've now changed things to apply those values to @appid in resourceid, and removed their connection to @copy-to, so those elements now add to resourceid/@appid in same branch.
- Kris; any questions? comments for
- Robert; the ditavalref change was the only substantial thing I noticed, only because it's a real edge case that was addressed in the past, so it had to be addressed here.
- Eric; we used it at IBM at least once.
- Kris; it almost makes we wish we ocould flag things as edge cases.
- Eliot; one person's edge case is someone else's essential feature...
- Zoe; one request; I don't quite grok the edge cases. I'd love a section that says 'here's 3 ways you could use this so it would work.'
- Eliot; this is definitely down in the weeds.
- Robert; the ditavalref feature has an impact on generated anchors, as does this feature, so we have to talk about when we use these things together.
- Jim; when talking about dvrResourcePrefix /Suffix, do they affect the effective value of @appid?
- Eliot; yes, they do affect them.
- Jim; I didn't think the anchor was stored in @appid.
- Eliot; the anchor is determind by the processor; @appid contributes to that, but how it contributes depends on the processor.
- Robert; part of the problem is that we're talking about something in extremely technical terms. Everyone thinks about it in terms of what it does to output. copy-to said 'when I publish this file in DITA, publish it with this name.' The new way just gives a token, so the token helps you set up the output. It gives us a stable reliable way to dereference things.
- Kris; we have promised to do a committee note on this; it will need to be written in a more user-friendly way than the spec.
- Jim; I'm interested in seeing how it gets written from writer point of view, not necessarily implementation... So resourceid doesn't have any information?
- Robert; it's a metadata element, all the info is in the @s.
- Kris; any more questions? comments? If not, we can vote on it next week.
[vote next week]
Relaxing specialization rules
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202105/msg00004.html (Eberlein, 04 May 2021)
- Kris; I couldn't get my example to work. I need active help on this this coming week.
- Eliot; I can help with it.
- Kris; I'll ping you offline; I built example topics for constraints using rng.
- Eliot; did we, as part of 2.0, break the reference to common elements out of topic.mod?
- Robert; it's still referenced from within topic.mod.
- Eliot; but the ref should be moved out of topic.mod, that's probably the problem Kris is having.
- Robert; that would have an effect on every single doc shell; half the elements will disappear. I don't know why it would have this result on her examples.
- Eliot; because it's ref'd from within topic.mod; we don't have the ability to replace a reference to commonElements with a reference to a constraint module that replaces commonElements; there's a whole set of parameter enities that are declared in the same file.
- Robert; I know it's ugly and a mess, but it would b e a nightmare to change.
- Eliot; if we move refs out of topic.mod it breaks every shell.
- Kris; isn't everyone going to need to use 2.0 shells or use the new ones as a base?
- Robert; I'm not saying we can't do this, but it's a seriously backward-incompatible change, so we need to think about it.
- Gershon; won't this make DITA cleaner and better?
- Eliot; there's a side effect on order of precedence rules in dtd, which are problematic.
- Robert; we could define everything up front; it would make it harder to specialize in order to make constraints easier... It also means defining other things more formally; I'm a bit wary of making them more formal. This is definitely not low-hanging fruit; it's an iceberg...
- Eliot; let me think about it in context of doing this kind of constraint in 1.3
- Kris; let's explore the possibilities; the alternative is to slim down what we're doing on proposal #15. Let's continue this on the list; we can start with email.
- Kris; everyone please look at agenda item #11 (vendor webinar)
end 12:01 pm
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]