dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 15 March 2022 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 02:12:34 +0000 (UTC)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Robert will open a Github card for the new proposal to add an attribute to cover cascading of roles
2. Kris will update proposals page for that new proposal.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 15 March 2022
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Attendance:
Robert Anderson, Carsten Brennecke, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Nancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Gershon Joseph, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois, Dawn Stevens, Frank Wegmann, Jim Tivy
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: none
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
08 March 2022
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202203/msg00013.html (Harrison, 14 March 2022)
Kris moved, 2nd Keith, approved by TC
3. Announcements
Dawn announced that Lovonya Thomas, ComTech event coordinator known to most [if not all] of us, passed away.
4. Action items
[updates only; see agenda for complete list]
15 February 2022:
Robert: Add objects attributes to cleanup work list
- Robert; will do this during coming week.
5. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DeadlinesDITA2.0
[updates only; see link for complete details]
Stage two
(Eberlein) Remove classification domain and add new attribute (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/647)
07 March 2022: Submit to reviews (Brennecke, Joseph)
9-13 March 2022: Feedback provided by TC and external reviewers (Pam Noreault, Ellucian; Shane Taylor, Cengage)
- Kris; I got feedback from internal and external reviewers; Pam Noreault of Ellucian said they only use it with Zoomin, so I'm now waiting to hear from Joe Gelb of Zoomin. Expecting to bring the proposal to the TC on 3/22/22
- Gershon; recommend that you send a reminder to Joe that you're waiting for feedback.
- Kris; did that yesterday
Stage three
(Nitchie, Eberlein) Loosen attribute specialization rules (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/15)
(./) 04 May 2021: Yet more early feedback requested by Eberlein
(./) 14 May 2021: Submit to reviewers (Anderson, Kimber, Nitchie)
(./) 17 May 2021: Feedback provided by Anderson, Kimber, and Nitchie
? 2022: Initial TC discussion
- Kris; hoping to get some work on this in next week...
6. Review L: DITA linking
Opening of review: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202203/msg00003.html (Eberlein, 03 March 2022)
Status of review: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202203/msg00017.html (Eberlein, 15 March 2022)
- Kris; will provide final list and PDF later today.
7. Review M: DITAVAL elements
Opening of review: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202203/msg00016.html (Eberlein, 15 March 2022)
- Kris; this is element topics for ditaval; had hoped to cover arch topics on conditional processing, but that will be next week. Please take a hard look at ditaval element ref content; it's being revised for first time since it was added in 1.1. Be aware that we specify more info for ditaval elements than for anything else in spec.
- Robert; these elements are awkward in that they'r part of the core, so they have no ancestry. OTON, they're in some ways not really part of DITA, but the profile for processing DITA.
- Kris; when Robert and I were looking over this, we realized it hadn'dt been modifiec to cover ways to put conditional stuff in a subjectscheme map. It's important content, so reviews are especially important.
8. Continued: Cascading of roles
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202202/msg00030.html (Eberlein, 28 February 2022)
Are we moving ahead with a stage two proposal?
- Kris; I left this on agenda because I didn't see in minutes whether we'd decided we'd move ahead with the new proposal
- Robert; we omitted to sover that specifically. I move that we move this proposal - to add this @ - to stage 2.
- Kris; will you be champion?
- Robert; yes
[Eric 2nd, no objections, approved by TC]
***ActionItem: Robert will open a Github card for this
- Kris; reviewers?
[Gershon, Carsten will review]
***ActionItem: Kris will update proposals page for this
9. DITA linking comments to discuss
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202203/msg00018.html (Eberlein, 15 March 2022)
- Robert; Ao the first point to consider (from the email) is "What ARE linking elements? Do we want to list them? Provide examples?" Basically, anything with @format, @href, @scope, and @type is a linking element. What do we want to say about this? We don't want to give an exhaustive list, because it might have to change. If we have an example, what do we put in it? We want to clarify when we talk about 'l;inking elements', we're not only referring to simply xref and link, but to any element that has these 4 @s.
but how far do we go? more that need to make sure that users understand that when we talk about liniking elements, it's any element with one of those 4 @s
- Nancy; so linking elements need just one, or all 4?
- Robert; anything that has an @href should have the other 3 as well, and is a linking element. As of 1.3, any element with @href also has the other 3.
- Kris; we did some fixes on this in 1.3 errata 2; we hadn't gotten all of the fixes in by 1.3, so we fixed the rest in that errata.
- Robert; the intent in 1.3 was to make this a universal policy, which is why we needed a fix in errata.
- Robert; that brings us to point 2 (from the email) "What does it mean that @format, @href, @scope, and @type work as a unit? Why is this important? Has the DITA standard changed about this over time and releases?" Processors assume that if you reference something that's not DITA, you set @format on it. when those @s are missing, you might have a publishing element that sets something to a website, and if you don't use the @s, there's no way to say it's not local. So those 4 @s act as a set.
- Kris; the fact that at least one reviewer stumbled on this means that we need to put more info into the spec about what we mean by 'linking elements'. It's definitely an area where a large proportion of DITA community , when they hear 'linking elements', they think it only means xref, link, and topicref. But implementers need to have a broader understanding.
- Zoe; I agree that it can use some clarification.
10. Review tooling
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202111/msg00006.html (Eberlein, 02 November 2021)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202111/msg00016.html (Hudson, forwarded by Eberlein on 09 November 2021)
Continue from 08 March 2022
- Kris; I couldn't quite tell from last week;s minutes. Scott, can you give brief update?
- Scott; is this review tool for the TC to do committee reviews, or from broader public review?
- Kris; this is just for our internal review. OASIS has formal policiies and processes for extenal reviews.
- Scott; were some concerns with directly putting comments into our Git source? There are a couple of options. Oxygen has a web based tool, which can be tied into a Git process; the other option is to use ContentFusion, which uses a separate review server that works with change tracking; after review is complete, author can pull changes back into Oxygen, make changes and check back in; we could do that and check source back into our Git repo
- Kris; was Radu also suggesting using published Oxygen webhelp with their feedback feature?
- Scott; that would be tied into their server; that does tie in to store feedback back in Git. and if we have requirements that we need to preserve all that feedback, we might want to store it in Git as history.
- Kris; so we're still considering both the approaches suggested by Synchrosoft.
- Scott; either webhelp or ContentFusion modes.
- Kris; I'd prefer to wait on taking things to Chet until we're pretty clear on a process for what we want to do.
- Scott; one downside with webhelp-based approach, we'd need to set up another app as well, a gradle script that is triggered thru a netlify app. That's another 3rd party software that complicates things. so I'd lean towards the ContentFusion server that oxygen has offered. I think it would be easier to get in place.
- Eliot; I do have some experience with netlify
- Robert; ContentFusion looks better since it won't fill our repo with stuff that's Oxygen-specific.
- Kris; I agree
- Scott; with ContentFusion, a spec editor would initiate loading content you wanted reviewed, upload it to ContentFusion, ContentFusion gives you a URL for the review, you send that to reviewers, that gives them permission to comment, but the comments don't go into the repo, originator has to pull in and commit changes.
- Kris; does ContentFusion make it possible for multiple reviewers to discuss the changes?
- Scott; yes, and there's a public review demo for ContentFusion, I'm looking for it right now.
- Kris; do any of TC members work for a company running ContentFusion?
- Scott; we have one at ServiceNow, I can share my screen and do a demo now. It requires you to have an addon called ContentFusion task manager.
[Scott did demo] see https://fusion.oxygenxml.com/ for more info.]
- Kris; does it produce summary info?
- Scott; it will give you stats based on what's reviewed, so if root is a map, then you get stats for everything in map.
- Kris; we should set up a faux review, walk thru it all, so we can figure out all the questions we would need to bring up with Chet.
- Scott; Radu said we could set up our own server, or do one on the public review server.
- Kris; so maybe we could next week do small faux review, using ContentFusion, of ditaval elements, replicate what we did in the DITAWeb review, and walk thru it to figure out what we might need.
- Scott; shall I reach out to Radu and see if we can set up a review area?
- Kris; do we need that, or could we use their public one?
- Scott; let me check. I'll need to follow up with Radu to find out if that will work. Yes, we could use the ContentFusion evaluation server. It is public, but everything we're working on is publiclly viewable. But in order to share that review, they'd need a URL.
- Kris; let's see what we can set up for next week. please everyone, look at ditaval review.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]