. Users would still choose from general and steps.
Nancy: I thought about that and I would prefer to have either or both. If you add the diagnostics overview, you are basically replicating what diagnostics general is. I would prefer to have both.
Kris: Dawn, was your preference for allowing both?
Dawn: I think so, for a simplicity perspective, rather than introducing a new element. I think somebody had suggested that diagnostics steps be steps informal, but I think that might be overkill as well.
Kris: I think if we go down the path of either or both, we would only want one diagnostics general and one diagnostics steps.
Nancy: and one diagnostics section.
Kris: I have not had an opportunity to digest Silke's email.
Nancy: I took a look at it and I felt that both would meet her needs.
Dawn: I also looked at it as well.
Kris: I also sent an email to the list where I reviewed the White paper from Bob Thomas. One thing that I noticed, regardless of which option we choose, we need to update that white paper. The DITA 1.3 article should be retired.
Nancy: The article should be marked as only applicable for DITA 1.3.
Kris: the article recommends using the first troubleshooting section for diagnostics.
Dawn: which is what Ericsson did. That is what we recommended. We also had them apply an outputclass. I agree we should re-write the white paper when we have a solution.
Kris: I think the DITA TC should update the information as a committee note rather than the adoption committee writing another white paper.
Scott: One thing we talked about was providing better conref mechanism for reusing steps in diagnostics steps.
Kris: I think will happen automatically. There shouldn't be anything preventing that reuse.
Robert: I think that is correct. DITA 2.0 removed constraint tokens that might have caused processors that prevented that reuse.
Nancy: Also DITA 1.3 used substeps rather than nested steps which should make reuse easier.
Kris: Diagnostics uses steps regardless of task or troubleshooting model.
Kris: Robert, do we need to highlight for processors some of our changes that eliminate these warnings.
Robert: I guess, I'm not sure where or how. The things that were highlighted causing warnings, will no longer be there causing problems.
Kris: I have two questions. Do we want to go ahead and make a decision today or or hold it for next week, assuming Eliot is present? The second is a process question: I'm assuming for this change, we will need to re-open the proposals for the diagnostics and troubleshooting element. Not only to technical design, but also to the spec documentation.
Robert: I think we have to have some sort of paperwork around this so this does not get lost.
Nancy: Do we need to do both stage 2 and stage 3?
Kris: I think we do, because the stage 3 proposal reuses a lot of information from the Stage 2 proposal through conref. So, I think we need to update both. Do folks want to go ahead and opt for the design of "either or both" or the solution that Eliot is proposing? Or, do folks want to wait until Eliot is present?
Nancy: I think we can wait. Since we have another proposal to review. I don't think it is urgent.
Gershon: I would also like to wait. I haven't had a chance to review Silke's email. I'd like to go through that to make sure what is being proposed is going to work for Precision Content clients as well.
Kris: Are there others who have clients who have content with complex diagnostics to make sure the new design will work for them?
Gershon: Our clients don't have the complex troubleshooting, but I want to put some thinking against the input from Ericsson with the proposals. I'll try to use the design for other clients I've worked with.
Kris: very good. I'll put this on the agenda for next week.
Kris: Regarding the need to have a DITA 2.0 troubleshooting committee note, who is available and willing to work on this? I'm hoping we can get the original DITA source for the white paper. I'm hoping it is available in Kavi or SVN. Unfortunately, Bob is no longer with us. I would like to give an acknowledgment to Bob in the Committee note. We need to check the OASIS rules. Anyone interested in volunteering to work on this? Nancy, Dawn, and Kris are willing to work on this.
Kris: Ask for other announcements.
Gershon: Keith has left Precision Content. His new employer is not an OASIS member. He is considering an individual membership and continuing as a representative on the Adoption committee.
Kris: Thanks for that.
11:43 AM ET close
-- Deb Bissantz
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]