[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: MEETING MINUTES -- 07 DEC 2004 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES -- 07 Dec 2004 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
*** Please see Action Items and Decision Summary at the end ***
** Agenda **
------------
1. Roll call
2. Review/approve minutes from 30 November (if available on the
list yet)
3. Specification status
-
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/10226/dit
aspec.pdf
-
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/10225/dit
aspec.chm
- "issues for discussion in specification" (start from
"Domains attribute") --
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00022.html
4. List issues (triage as potential post-1.0):
- Bugs reported on current DITA DTDs and Schemas
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00023.html
- Should <tm> allow images or logoized content?
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00024.html
- Should <keyword> be allowed to nest?
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00025.html
5. AOB?
** Minutes **
-------------
1. Roll call -- 11 of 21 => QUORUM
2. Review/approve minutes from 30 November (if available on the
list yet)
- Minutes approved as discussed.
3. Specification status
-
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/10226/dit
aspec.pdf
-
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/10225/dit
aspec.chm
- "issues for discussion in specification" (start from
"Domains attribute") --
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00022.html
- We went through this list and resolved open issues.
- Regarding the "Modularization in CSS" issue -- We need
to make sure we are in conformance with the CSS spec.
We should test on Mozilla, IE, and Opera.
- Additional issues, not included in the list --
- Specialization as a separate spec?
- Do we want to spin this off as a separate
spec? (so that people can use DITA's
specialization features on a different base
class)
- What is the impact (if any) of someone
creating a new base class from which to
specialize?
- Eliot wants to spin it off -- his clients
don't want to use the base topics. It's not
enough just to say that specialization can be
used independently -- no one will catch that,
and will assume you must use DITA as
a package.
- Paul -- We don't have time to keep spinning
things off and incorporate more things. Let's
do it later. Let's finish the 1.0 as
a baseline and get it out the door.
- Don -- What would be the practical impact on
the TC?
- We'd have to maintain two different specs
- How would this affect our decision-making
procedures, etc.?
- Michael -- Maybe we should have a section on
"breaking the architecture" -- adding new base
classes, adding metadata attributes, etc. "If
you want to break it, here's how to break it."
- Nancy Harrison made some good comments but
I couldn't catch them!
- Seraphim -- Spinning off the specialization
seems contradictory to one of our goals, to
provide a single DITA standard that can be
used as a basis to share information between
anyone who uses DITA. Let's look at WHY
people see the need to do that -- why the DITA
base classes are inadequate -- and address
that.
- Erik Hixson -- Let's do it a white paper on
how to use the specialization technique -- NOT
spin it off as a separate spec. This relieves
us of the burden of maintaining a separate
spec that is not in line with our goals.
- Michael and Eliot continued the discussion,
Michael making the case that if you use
different base classes you can't use most of
the content of the DITA architecture and you
break compatibility and reuse; and Eliot
making the case that sometimes business
requirements dictate the use of different base
classes.
- Michael -- shall we add a topic to the
specialization section explaining how to break
it? Why would you want to do that? What
would be a serious enough difference that
would necessitate a new base class, rather
than a specilization off existing base
classes?
- Nancy Harrison -- Eliot can provide guidance
on this, since he has a lot of experience with
this!
- Paul -- All this stuff is great, but we need
to get the 1.0 release done!
- Don -- Let's see if we can get all this
wrapped into the 1.0 spec without splitting it
off -- but let's continue the discussion!
4. List issues (triage as potential post-1.0):
- No time, not addressed.
5. AOB?
** Summary of Decisions **
--------------------------
- None
** Action Required **
---------------------
021 JoAnn Hackos, Michael Priestley -- Summarize the discussion
of substitution and post to the TC list. Still pending as
of 7/20/04. >>>11/30/04: Action: Michael Priestley to add
note to conref that people may substitute conref targets at
build time
022 Don, Michael -- Put together a "self-study" tutorial/demo,
as per JoAnn's comments regarding the DITA sessions. Still
pending as of 7/20/04.
040 Don -- Cull the past minutes and discussion list to create
an inventory of all the things we need to close on in order
to create the 1.0 spec. Create a list of these items and
post it in the Documents area of the website. >>> This will
be ongoing.
051 055 Don Day, 9/7/04 -- Take the discussion of @scale
attribute and related issues to the list (presentation
mechanisms). (merge with next...)
061 Don Day, 10/05/04 -- Reply to image align and tm notes in
dita-users. >>> Agenda item for 11/9/04. <<<11/30/04:
image align issue is a doc mistake, corrected in the
"dita132" toolkit version of Language Reference source.
062 Eric Sirois, 10/05/04 -- provide XSLT validation for
specialized schemas once developed (Indi recommends Jarno to
work with him)
063 All, 11/02/04, 11/09/04 -- Provide comments to Michael
Priestley on the draft -- provide comments to Michael ASAP.
Michael Priestley to incorporate comments into draft
specification; prepare new iteration for 11/16 meeting. >>>
11/30/04 in progress
068 Nancy Harrison to send summary of DocBook table
accessibility additions to TC list
** Issues to be Resolved **
---------------------------
005 All -- What should the scope and length of the conceptual
introduction be? >>> We'll get this from JoAnn. >>> Still
pending as of 11/9/04. >>> 11/30/04: Closed.
006 All -- Should DITA specialization mechanism be documented in
a separate specification in order to make it easier to use
in other XML applications that otherwise have no
relationship to topic-based writing? >>> Ongoing. >>>
11/30/04: - add to spec issues list
009 "Best Practices" document -- Let's put this on the agenda
for future discussion.
010 Relationship between DITA and other topic-based
architectures (such as S1000D) -- Need to incorporate this
into the "Best Practices" document.
011 All -- Revisit use of @scale on image (general treatment of
graphics, ie raster vs vector assumptions, etc.).
Compare/contrast with controls for the <object> element,
which in HTML subsumes the <img> element. >>> 11/30/04: see
Actions 051, 055 above.
<END>
___________________________________________________________
Seraphim Larsen ICG Technical Publications
Technical Writer Intel Corporation
(480) 552-6504 Chandler, AZ
The content of this message is my personal opinion only.
Although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make
here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor
am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.
___________________________________________________________
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]