Re: Requesting time for TC discussion on L&T feature 13106

Thanks, Don. I'll plan to attend the call
tomorrow. I'll also send a note to the TC on this as well.

John

From:      
 "Don Day (LbyW)"
<>

To:      
 

Cc:      
 Kristen Eberlein <>,
, , 

Date:      
 04/07/2012 09:57 PM

Subject:    
   Re: Requesting
time for TC discussion on L&T feature 13106

The technical agenda is "business as usual",
so I think we should plan for some update and discussion at Tuesday's meeting.
I'll have it in the agenda, so plan for an update and some initial discussion.
I agree with Robert that it will take awhile to work out the larger issues.

Don
R. Day 

DITA and XML Consultant, Learning
by Wrote

Co-Chair, OASIS
DITA Technical Committee 

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in
knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

--T.S. Eliot 

On 4/6/2012 8:12 AM, 
wrote: 

Dear Don, Kristen,

The L&T SC has a draft of feature proposal 13106 ready to discuss with
the TC.  See the latest HTML version here - http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-learningspec/download.php/45630/proposal-13106-learning-new-interaction.html

At our meeting yesterday, we had a good discussion with Robert and Eric.
As you can see in the minutes below, while Robert did not see any technical
issues in our approach, he did raise the larger problem of the need the
proposal raises to essentially duplicate 26 of the elements in the question-interaction
domain, in order to add support for multiple block element support.

At this point, we'd like to schedule 30 minutes time at an upcoming TC
agenda to brief the TC about the status of the proposal and get advice
on the options available to address the issues. Specifically, how to balance
the clear need from the DITA practitioner community to support block elements
in questions against the need for parsimony and simplicity in the DITA
spec? 

We can be ready to discuss as early as next Tuesday, or any of the subsequent
Tuesday meetings. 

Thanks. 

John Hunt 

Chair, OASIS DITA Learning and Training content subcommittee

John P. Hunt

Senior Technical Content Architect

IBM Collaboration Solutions | User Experience: Design and Information Excellence


| 978.899.2394; t/l 276.2394

Join
our community | Team
blog | Product
Wikis 

550 King Street

Littleton, MA 01460

USA 

----- Forwarded by John Hunt/Cambridge/IBM on 04/06/2012 08:59 AM -----

From:        Scott
Hudson <>

To:        

Date:        04/05/2012
12:43 PM 

Subject:        [dita-learningspec]
Groups - Event "Meeting - OASIS DITA Learning and Training sub-committee"
modified 

Sent by:        <>

Event Title: Meeting
- OASIS DITA Learning and Training sub-committee

Date: Thursday, 05 April 2012, 11:00am
- 12:00pm ET

Description 

US Toll Free 888-426-6840, participant code 8581755

Germany toll-free 0800-000-1018; Israel toll-free 1-809-417-783.

Contact John Hunt if you need additional numbers. 

This meeting counts towards voter eligibility.

Agenda 

Agenda - 

Review
feature proposal 13106.

Wiki
page with background discussion and sample questions

Proposed
Interaction Markup Design 

Sample
modulesGuests - Robert Anderson
and Eric Sirois, to review technical implementation of the specialization
modules. 

Minutes 

 Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000149 EndHTML:0000003853 StartFragment:0000000199
EndFragment:0000003819 StartSelection:0000000199 EndSelection:0000003819
DITA Learning 5 APR 2012 Minutes

Attendees:

Eric Sirois

John Hunt

Scott Hudson

Troy Klukewich

Hal Trent

Robert Anderson

Amber Swope

Mark Myers

Minutes:

John provided a brief summary of the proposals for Eric and Robert.

Essentially will be adding 26 new elements to the standard with this proposal.

Robert: may be worth re-defining the original specification to be specialized
off of div rather than fig. This may only be an impact to fallback processing
and tools with existing rendering that maps to the full class hierarchy
values, rather than the single specialized class. May also be an impact
if the original document embeds these values as well (not recommended anyways).

Need to specifically call out this as a change/new feature in the specification.

Need to have the DTDs modified to call the appropriate modules/domains
for the new div basis.

Default processing should still work, but any custom processing may have
to be reworked by the implementors.

John: may have an issue with existing title. lcInteractionLabel is proposed
to replace it.

Robert: that would be a problem. Might want to bring this issue up to the
TC to see if there are any other ideas/options. Not sure the TC will be
thrilled to add 26 new/duplicated elements, but can’t break backwards
compatibility either.

Perhaps would be better to adjust naming so it’s not just adding number2,
but have something like div. Wouldn’t need to duplicate any elements where
the locations are the same (If they were based on p, for example).

As far as kosher-ness of Eliot’s proposal, Robert would still like to
discuss further with Eliot.

May be able to put a “temporary bridge” out on sourceforge (similar to
way that Publishers was done), where the specialization is made available
and would require people to migrate title to lcInteractionLabel.

It might work better to have this delivered as a separate spec (isolated)
from the main spec, then it could break backwards compatibility.

Hal: the more we get into it, we are finding that the existing spec is
lacking quite a bit. We ran into issues with styling b/c of fallback processing
of fig. Because there are some known differences in the way it’s been
implemented (not everything works in Moodle), would it be bad to break
the backwards compatibility?

Robert: if we can split this off, we wouldn’t need to call it Learning
and Training 1.3, but could call it 2.0 to really mark this as a separate
specialization.

Amber: how would we differentiate the needs for the different use cases?
Do we come up with something different the way Task was redefined by Machine
Industry?

Hunt: we need to be positioned with a flexible enough model to allow future
specializations by specific companies (using this standard as the base,
but giving them the starting point to do their own specializations). Still
want to attain the “Starter Kit” approach.

Scott: what about Simplified DITA? Do we need to make our proposal compatible?

Robert: Simplified is a separate, highly constrained DTD, so will not need
to make compatible. This proposal would be targeted for compatibility with
full DITA.

ACTION: John to communicate to Don and Kristen about how we should approach
this specialization and what to do about the title situation.

Owner: John Hunt

Group: DITA Learning and Training Content Specialization SC

Sharing: This event is shared with the OASIS Open (General Membership),
General Public, and OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA)
TC groups. Public
Event Link

[attachment "ical_32951.ics" deleted by John Hunt/Cambridge/IBM]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

For additional commands, e-mail: