to allow for flowcharts.
Gershon - I read the long email. I'm okay with the change to allow both rather than either/or. Eliot's proposal is more sophisticated. At the late time, I think we should move on with allowing both.
Nancy - I think Eliot's proposal might also be confusing.
Kris - I'm okay with changing to allow both. We will have to be careful with updating to make sure we include both scenarios and enhance the examples. I'm hearing consensus that we move forward to revise those proposals to allow either or both diagnostics_general or diagnostics_steps in diagnostics. No objections. Dawn, let's move ahead. Let me know if you need help.
Dawn - You updated the grammar files, right?
Kris - Yes, I can do that. We can work together off line.
Dawn - What is the process for this? Would we use track changes to show people the changes.
Kris - We don't really have a process for this. Let's meet off line. I'll check those proposals and see if we need to do any change highlighting to bring to people attentions.
9. DITA TC Open OASIS repos
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202107/msg00008.html (Eberlein, 13 July 2021)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202107/msg00009.html (Chet Ensign, 13 July 2021)
Need to revise statement of purpose to cover generating monolithic XSD (DTD also?)
New repo for specializations not part of the standard
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202107/msg00010.html (Eberlein, 13 July 2021)
We need the following to request a repo
URL string (part of URL, for example, dita-rng-converter
Short description (used on Web page)
Purpose statement (used in README)
Maintainer name, e-mail, GitHub ID: Carlos Evia, firstname.lastname@example.org, carlosevia
Proposed OS license
Kris - WE talked about two things: broadening the scope of the RNG converter repository, and a new repository for our specializations that we are removing from the standard in DITA 2.0. We need a number of things to request a repository, listed in the agenda. Carlos stepped forward as maintainer. I suggest for the OS license we use the same license we used for the RNG converter. Is there somebody who could do a little work to put together the short description and purpose statement.
Nancy - We have those short description and purpose statement for our other repositories, don't we.
Kris - Yes. All of our repositories have these. We need to make sure we separate these from the standards repository
Nancy - I'll take a crack at it.
ACTION item for Nancy.
Kris - WE talked about this repository being a place to manage those items removed from the spec. Do we want to make this repository more broad than just the things we are removing, but to include other specializations.
Nancy - That might encourage others to put things there.
Kris - Other opinions?
Robert - I'm ambivalent.
Kris - I know early in the TC history, the TC thought they might have a repository for groups to maintain specializations. I'm also ambivalent. I'm pro opening up for others, but don't want this to become a dumping ground for specializations that have not been vetted.
Gershon - Are we able to monitor these repositories to prevent people from dumping.
Kris - Absolutely, that is the role of the maintainer. Maybe we start with a broad description with a main focus on collecting the content removed from the standard.
Nancy - Can we edit these?
Kris - If you look at Chet's email. He was okay with the changes suggested for the RNG repository description.
11:23 AM ET close
-- Deb Bissantz
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]