[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes - 3 November 2009
| ||||||||
DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes
========================================
The DITA Technical Committee met on 3 November 2009 at 08:00am PT for 60
minutes.
Chaired by Don Day <dond@us.ibm.com>
Minutes recorded by Gershon Joseph <gerjosep@cisco.com>
Roll call
> Quorum was achieved.
Approve minutes from previous business meetings:
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00145.html (27 October 2009, Joseph)
> Minutes approved by acclamation.
Subcommittee/liaison reports (as needed)
* OASIS DITA Help Subcommittee
> Stan will report next week.
* OASIS DITA Pharmaceutical Content Subcommittee
> ACTION: Don to send Steffen a note asking for an update in 2 week's time.
Announcements:
1. BusDocs Whitepaper:
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00134.html
2. Article about conref push published by Adoption TC:
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00137.html
Business:
ITEM: DITA 1.2 specification (revised by Eberlein 3 November 2009)
* Spreadsheet and DITA topics located in the Subversion repository
* Information about contributors, deadlines, editorial guidelines, Subversion
clients, and more
* Business:
a. Progress report on spec review #2
* All reviews are completed except for the following:
* Technical content (arch spec): Day
> Kris asked if anyone would like to volunteer to replace Don on this
> review task. Jeff Ogden and Dick Hamilton offered to review this
> content.
* L & T (both arch spec and lang ref): L & T subcommittee (expected
> completion 10/13), Nevin 80%
> L&T SC has completed their review.
b. Need to revise spec author/review schedule due to the following issues:
* Constraints proposals and issues
* Discussion around terminology
* Work being done to restructure conref/keyref/href material
> Kris is going to contact authors offline for revised completion
> estimates in order to arrive at a realistic revised schedule.
c. Need for authors to handle the following points (we might need to
schedule an authors meeting)
* Implementing "referencing element" and "referenced element" terminology
* Implementing cascade vs. inherit terminology
* Moving content of some <draft-comment> elements -> XML comments; for
the next review, we should be using <draft-comment> elements only for
comments to reviewers.
* Ensuring conformance statements are valid, correct and correctly marked
up ("must", "should" etc. correctly used and tagged)
> Kris will drive this on the list. May need a meeting to discuss.
ITEM: documentation of conref restrictions
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00050.html (Nevin)
* Nevin update:
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200911/msg00011.html
> Bruce summarized the changes in email.
> Gershon reviewed the topic and found it good (minor editorial changes sent
> via private email).
> Kris: Eliot, Robert and I had an offline email thread where Eliot
> volunteered to review Bruce's topic and the relevant existing topics in the
> spec and come up with a recommendation.
> ACTION: Eliot to review the topic and propose how to move forward with this.
> CONTINUED -- Revisit next week.
New ITEM 13 Oct: strong/weak constraint proposal
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00051.html (Priestley)
> Closed 2 weeks ago; remove from today's agenda.
New ITEM: 20 Oct: Proposal to the OASIS DITA TC to form a "DITA for the Web" Sub-Committee
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00102.html (Hunt)
> John Hunt walked through the proposal.
> The TC discussed whether this SC would be better off as an SC of the Adoption
> TC. The statement of purpose is more adoption oriented, while the list of
> deliverables is more spec oriented.
> Don suggested perhaps the SC could cover the technical issues first as a SC
> of this TC and then take the adoption/white paper activities over to the
> adoption TC.
> Seth feels they should start off in the DITA TC. Kris agreed. No-one objected
> to this.
> John moved to form the SC. Bruce seconded. No objections.
> DECISION: The DITA TC agreed to form a "DITA for the Web" SC.
New ITEM: Domain Integrator
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00129.html (Kimber)
> Eliot clarified that he was following up on the general action from a meeting
> several weeks ago for folks to test-drive the tool. Eliot found that the tool
> comes close to meeting the needs of providing a shell creating tool. Positive
> assessment from Eliot.
> Don reminded the TC members to test-drive the tool.
> Eliot noted that the tool only supports creating a shell from the standard
> modules. There is no support for supporting specialized modules.
> Don asked Eliot to engage the developer via email. We're not sure whether the
> developer monitors the online bug reporting tool.
> ACTION: DITA Adoption TC to add the tool to their list of DITA supporting
> tools and write a white paper to help users generate custom shells. Gershon
> to forward this request to the Adoption TC.
ITEM: Resumption of: task vs. general task, constraints, conref, and other related issues
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200909/msg00368.html (Ogden summary)
* wiki summary: Summary of task vs. general task, constraints, conref, and
other related issues
* Updated UPDATED SUMMARY
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00087.html (Ogden, and
following thread)
* Despite the title of this item, this discussion now only concerns restored
items 3 and 4
* Continue discussion from last week (Ogden, Michael, Eliot, and Seth Park's
suggestion)
* Re-create general task from topic?
* http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200910/msg00117.html (Park)
> Jeff: Discussion is wrapped up except for existing task specializations if
> somebody upgrades from 1.1 to 1.2 they will end up with general tasks unless
> the specializer takes some action. Is this OK or not? I see 3 alternatives on
> the table to address this:
> 1) Abandon constraints as a method to implement generic task, and go back and
> respecialize task from topic and so forth.
> 2) Violate some of our design pattern rules to try to prevent side-effects
> that would repair the problem at least for this 1.2 release of the spec.
> 3) Stick with current course come what may and specializers will have to make
> changes if they don't want the general task behavior.
> Michael and I had a conversation 2 weeks ago about whether there are some
> alternatives that allow us to repair the problem. I'm OK violating the rules
> a bit, but Michael was still reluctant but open to the idea to solve the
> problem. Since then the discussion has been around the details of how to
> actually do that.
> Michael: The concern I had about automation of the specialization assembly
> based on file naming conventions is less of a concern. We don't have a strict
> naming convention for domains. I'm still really unsure. If we do this now,
> will we be able to address it easily in a future release or are we making the
> issue bigger in the longer term?
> Gershon suggested preference for the 3rd option [in Jeff's list] and handle
> the issue via documentation including having the Adoption TC help us to be
> proactive about letting the community know that specializations will break.
> CONTINUED. Continue on list. Don to move this item to end of agenda next week.
*** Meeting Adjourned ***
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]