dita — archive

[Nancy Harrison]

Submitter's message Action Items 1. All proposal owners need to add deadlines in Trello DavidH; add deadline and reviewers to Trello card for 13001 Eliot; update Trello status (deadlines, reviewers) for all proposals, especially 13104, 13112, 13120, and 13041 MichaelP; add deadline for 13121 to Trello Stan; touch base with Tom Cihak on 13102 re; progress, and update Trello as appropriate for 13102, 13060, 13061 2. All TC members need to carefully review 13004 (scoped keys) spec language, especially Table 5. =================================================== Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC Tuesday, 1 October 2013 Recorded by N. Harrison regrets: Warman Standing Business ================= https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201309/msg00069.html (24 September, Nancy Harrison) Proposed by Kris, seconded by ChrisN, approved by TC Subcommittee Reports none (Semiconductor SC October) Announcements: none Business ======== 1. Regrets for 22 October TC meeting (LavaCon); do we need to cancel? Don Day Kris Eberlein Dick Hamilton Nancy Harrison Tom Magliery 2, Regrets for 19 November (DITA Europe) JoAnn Hackos Dick Hamilton Eliot Kimber Tom Magliery Chris Nitchie 3. DITA 1.3 progress Progress: 23-29 September 2013: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201309/msg00062.html (Eberlein, 29 September) Update on current deadlines: http://chris.nitchie.com/trellotrack/#511a73d76ee890a51c0007ed Trello Board: https://trello.com/b/gPKH0OcF Kris reviewed progress; one proposal was completed last week. Also, she's made changes on reporting; breaking Trello down into 1 proposals in progress 2. stage 3 discussion 3. stage 3 complete ActionItem: all proposal owners need to add deadlines in Trello 4. DITA 1.3 proposals, stage 3 Review of current proposals: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201309/msg00066.html 13106 - hoping to move proposal to review in 2 weeks 13097 - needs reviewers, also depends on 13121 13004 - discussion continues today 13001 - David has sent out a 'pre-proposal' to couple of folks, got feedback from Eliot, reviewers already assigned, now close to review. Kris asked David to add the reviewers to Trello card 13041 - dependent on scoped keys 13103 - needs to come back for final discussion before vote 13104 -(eliot will check) 13112 -(eliot will check) 13119 - needs to come back for final discussion before vote 13120 -(eliot will check) kris; RelaxNG (13112) is a prereq for a lot of other work, so it needs to be prioritized Eliot; that's what I'm working on now, for that reason. I'll review other proposals and bring up to date. 13121 - structural specialization (MichaelP); this is a prereq. for troubleshooting (13097), so it needs a deadline before Dec. so that 13097 can reference it. Michael says he's aiming for end Oct. Kris asked Michael to add a deadline in Trello. 13056 - end Oct 13059 - end Oct 13059a - end Oct 62 - Scott already added a deadine 13060/13061 - Stan noted that there's an upcoming Help SC mmeting, where they'll work out the help proposals; he's hopeful they can be ready for discussion on 10/28 13102 - Stan will touch base with Tom Cihak, to be sure he's making progress Request for reviewers: 13097: Troubleshooting topic (Bob Thomas for the TechComm SC) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201309/msg00067.html Can this proposal even be reviewed before 13121: Reuse a structural specialization as domain is completed? Probably not... Reviewers now assigned (Hackos, Harrison); but discussion of proposal postponed until 13121 is further along. Ready for vote: Voting options are Yes, No, and Abstain None Ready for discussion: Proposal 13004: Scoped keys (Nitchie) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201309/msg00047.html (HTML, uploaded 20 September) https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201309/msg00048.html (DITA, uploaded 20 September) Chris gave an overview; the proposal allows users to put a key @scope on a topic or map, and then those keys can only be referenced within the scope, but if someothing outside the scope needs to access that key, they can do so by specifying the scope as well as the key. In response to a question by Eliot, Chris noted that last week's dioscussion clarified that 13041 (cross-deliverable linking) depends on this proposal, not the other way round. He also noted that he has implemented this feature in internal projects and is comfortable with the functionality; his concern is not so much with the functionality, but the language used to describe it; is it good enough? Eliot; that's the real question, and I haven't given the language enough attention. Kris; that's my concern also. I'm mostly concerned with the spec. There are 3 areas in the spec that need serious revision/rewriting, and one of those is everything related to keys. Chris; I agree; when I think about key scope context and keyref resolution context, they're almost the same thing, but from 2 diffrent points of view. Nancy; how will we make sure Eliot's spec language for 13041 conforms to Chris's for this proposal? Chris; I went through all key-related language and updated all of it to make it more consistent in the process of doing stage 3 work on this. If we now go back and 'fix up' all the key-related language, it will undo all my work. If we go back and make it more 'formally correct', it may make it harder to understand. Kris; Thanks, Chris, for all the work you did for this. For me, reading this proposal, it's hard to have a sense of how this would work in the spec; it would be helpful to be looking at these in the spec, with change bars. Stan; For DITA 1.1 and 1.2, we had a 'what's new' section. This work on keys is a good candidate for a 'Why did we do this?' kind of section in the 1.3 spec. Kris; apropos of this, if we update our stage 3 template, should we have a section to include text for a 'what's new in dita 1.x' section, if appropriate for release notes material? Chris; the meat of the language in the proposal, the most importatnt single change is Table 5, new language on key scope. Kris; Shall we hold over for one more week of discussion, and have TC members pay more attention in reviewing to table 5? Nancy; We should give some thought to how we'll code the reltable for the spec to ensure that all the relevant pieces are thoroughly linked. Kris; Do we want change bars for this? I don't know if OASIS rules actually allow them, but Chet has been flexible... Chris; Maybe we should consider taking the 'what's new' section, and turning it into another deliverable as an introduction or official tutorial. Resolution; continue discussion to next week ActionItem: All TC members need to carefully review 13004 (scoped keys) spec language, especially Table 5. 5. DITA 1.3 infrastructure: Report on 30 September meeting held by work group (Anderson, Doherty, Eberlein, and Harrison) Resume discussion of packaging for DITA 1.3 (on hold since spring 2013?) Robert gave overview; 1. wrt getting the spec published; we have a lot of tools, but may need more. We have DITA-OT production plugins that need to be updated (Robert will look at those); also, we'll need more help from other TC members; we'll look at what else needs to be done. We have to come to consensus on packaging; there will be more and more discussion here as we get prototypes up. 2. contains/contained by; we need to have prototypes in place before we can discuss that. I will look at what I can throw together as prototypes. I don't want to do prototypes based on old DTDs; want to use the new RelaxNG models. Issues are: - how to actually publish the thing, - we need tool to zip up packages - Kris has already incorporated the 1.2 errata; thanks Kris - SVN repository is a bit of a mess - general cleanup of keys/keyref language, then we need all the reviews that need to be done - goal is to do as much stuff as early as possibly Kris; one thing that became clear; there are lots of connections and interdependencies; a big one is not only approving RelaxNG, but having a tool we can use to build from RNG. - need consensus on packages, and information design/navigational structure (including contains/contained by tables) - really need to be looking at prototypes, even rough ones without complete OASIS atyling. - packaging; last time we talked about it, tC seemed to want 3: base base plus techcomm base plus techcomm plus l&t Kris; Michael, what do ou think about packaging? MichaelP; we know that specialization doesn't affect people who don't use it, really, but non-techies don't get that, and the size of the spec makes it look big. So when people say 'DITA is too complex', we want to be able to reply, 'which DITA? . We have a base, which is fairly simple, and others, which have more functionality . Nancy; I thought the answer to that question was 'look at lightweight DITA'. MichaelP; Actually, there need to be 2 different answers to that question. One is Lightweight DITA, one is packaging. closed at 12:01 -- Nancy Harrison Document Name : DITA TC Meeting Minutes 1 Oct 2013 No description provided. Download Latest Revision Public Download Link Submitter : Nancy Harrison Group : OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC Folder : Meeting Notes Date submitted : 2013-10-08 02:24:53