dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 6 September 2022 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:18:27 +0000 (UTC)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Kris will create template for combined Stage 2/3 proposals.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 06 September 2022
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Attendance:
===========
Robert Anderson, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Nancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Gershon Joseph, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Melanie Petersman, Jim Tivy, Nathanial Mohammed
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Scott Hudson, Carsten Brennecke, Eliot Kimber
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
16 August 2022
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202209/msg00007.html (Harrison, 06 September 2022)
23 August 2022
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202208/msg00050.html (Harrison, 30 August 2022)
3. Announcements
Eliot gave regrets for 8/13 and 8/20
4. Action items
21 June 2022
Scott: See what other ServiceNow folks would be interested in being DITA TC members CLOSED
- Scott: Unable to find anyone else at ServiceNow to participate.
26 July 2022
Gershon: Review content about generalization and initiate discussion on e-mail list COMPLETED
23 August 2022
Kris: Send prototype of alternate appendix organization to e-mail list COMPLETED
Robert: Implement reorg of directory structure for DITA specialization repo
- Robert: Specializations repo reoganized: Still in progress
5. Update from LwDITA Subcommittee
- SC approved moving from @poster to
- Kris: Appropriate to do a combined Stage 2/Stage 3 proposal?
- Eliot: Seems like an appropriate process streamline.
- Robert: Agrees with combined.
***ActionItem: Kris will create template for combined Stage 2/3 proposals.
6. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DeadlinesDITA2.0
[updates only; see link above fore complete list]
- Kris; Robert, please open a Github issue to track our LwD items, and line up reviewers as well.
Stage three
(Anderson) New impose-role attribute (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/670)
?: Submit to reviewers (Joseph, Wegmann)
?: Initial TC discussion
?: Vote by TC
- Kris; Robert, when can you get to this?
- Robert; try to get to it this week.
(Kimber) Clean-up changes (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/397)
Note that this does not need to follow the stage three template. But we do need clear description of each change, when the TC approved the change, and whether the change has been made in the grammar files and spec.
27 August 2022: Draft to reviewers (Joseph, Harrison, Anderson)
- Kris; what about 397, Eliot? You got feedback from Gershon and Nancy.
- Robert; or should we just turn this around?
- Kris; Eliot, when will you be able to work on this?
- Eliot; I'll do my best to get it back to TC before next week's meeting.
- Kris; great. And please get the links to minutes into it.
7. DITA 2.0 spec review: Configuration (16-29 August 2022
Opening of review:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202208/msg00032.html (Eberlein, 16 August 2022)
Interim status:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202209/msg00000.html (Eberlein, 02 September 2022)
[see item below]
8. Discussion of Referred comments from the configuration review
Continued: Appendix C content
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202208/msg00029.html (Eberlein, 16 August 2022)
[numbers referenced below refer to table in able link]
- Bill; I'm a bit worried about the discussion around constraints and expansion.
- Kris; we really have defined configuration as including both constraints and expansion.
- Bill; ok
- Kris; any opposition to 1 (section title)?
[none]
- Kris; wrt 1.2.1, there's a question by Zoe; is it OOTB or are you specializing? The question for me is whether we need to do high-level training for new TC members on all these distinctions.
- Robert; first part, from Eliot, makes a valid point, but -rewording this would bring us into the weeds; Language ref says that when you validate it brings in class @s,
- Kris; one nuance I want to ask about; are we talking about 2 different things when we talk about grammar-aware processing and validation against grammar files? We want to ensure they haven't violated grammar rules.
- Eliot; I don't think it's necessary to make the distinction
- Robert; leave it as is and move on. if you know it well enough to know it's incorrect, you don't need the change.
[wrt 1.2.2]
- Robert; Gershon said 'this does belong in spec, but this is way too easily overlooked; implementors should know this, but too many don't know it. It's a best practice, but a critical enough one to be included.
- Stan; I'd recommend a qualification; if there's no one on the team who can do that kind of specialization, include a 'when you want to up your game, do this.'
- Kris; I'm wary of that, it does say you can use DITA OOTB.
- Robert; you can use DITA OOTB, Shells are a best practice, you need them for later on in your implementation.
- Kris; I'd be uncomfortable adding more verbiage. Stan, are you comfortable with not changing?
- Stan; I'm thinking about folks reading the spec to see if they want to make investment in DITA, might spook them.
- Zoe; it feels weird, since I've never done shells in all the time I've used DITA. You can definitely do an implementation without it.
- Robert; you were using custom shells without realizing it.
- Kris; let's leave this one as is. neither taking it out nor expanding it.
1.2.2.
- Robert; Eliot notes we haven't been complying with rules for URNs. If we want this in examples, should be in publicIDs as well for RNG files.
- Eliot; this is only about identically conforming to a spec, not about being functional; if it's too much work, we shouldn't do it.
- Robert; it's not too much work; if there's a rule, we should comply in 2.0, since everyone will have to change publicIDs anyway.
- Kris; any objection to changing this in spec and RNG grammar files.
1.2.3
- Robert; Gershon says it's stating the obvious, but I disagree.
- Eliot; think this aspect of DITA is both non-abvious and unique to DITA.
- Kris; I also don't think this is obvious; it's.very new and novel to DITA.
- Eliot; if you have XML tools that are configured to be bound to a DTD, DITA breaks them; for tools to be DITA-aware, tools need to be more aware and sophisticated.
- Kris; comments?
- Melanie; I agree with everything you said; I remember reading this and it wasn't obvious till I read it.
- Kris; sounds like agreement
1.2.4
- Robert; idea is that I can have a topic that validates against; what we care about conformance is what's in your document. used to give rules about conformance of grammar files; without this, the conclusion could be that if you don't set up your DTD files, it won't conform.
- Nancy; I would say this is the furthest thing from obvious.
- Kris; should we leave this and revisit this when we do conformance topics? (since they overlap)
- Robert; how can we say 'typically governed by conforming type shell' if we've abandoned 'conformance?
- Eliot; what if we replace 'conforming' with 'follows coding guidelines'.
- -Kris; we want to keep conforming when it modifies. We want to be able to say; a conforming DITA document is not required to use a doc shell.
- Robert; but that's not usually the case. we're trying to say you don't have to use a modular DTD/RNG, you could use an mammoth XSD
- Kris; or something your tool has created.
- Robert; I think we need rewording, but it's not obvious
- Kris; shall we hold on to this item? It's essential to keep it, but we can't do the wordsmithing just yet. We'll move it to 'accepted', but we need to do rewording wrt other places about conformance.
1.3.3
- Robert; should best praactices info go somewhere else? I think it should go there, comments?
- Kris; we have to be careful about moving stuff into an appendix if folks will have to flip back and forth in spec.
- Zoe; I was wondering if, rather than moving all best practices to an appendix, we might have typical/best practice stuff in spec but highlighted within spec.
- Kris; I'd be uncomfortable introducing specific rendering for best practices.
- Zoe; I'm ok with that.
- Kris; we'll continue with this next week, plus do review of DTD/RNG coding practices, another 2 week review.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]