Re: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007

[Gershon L Joseph <gershon@tech-tav.com>]

Grosso, Paul wrote:
> With due respect to (and appreciation for) Gershon's
> minute taking, there are several points that I believe
> may need correcting in last meeting's minutes.

Nice to know someone reads the minutes :)

...

>> 2.  ITEM: Ongoing review of 1.1 drafts
>>
>>     * Architectural Spec:
>>       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00033.html
>>
>>         Don: Some list feedback on Michael's questions.
>>
>>         Michael: Should we deprecate the grouped value
>>         syntax for conditional property values in otherprops?
>>         List discussion was in favor of deprecating.
>>
>>         Paul clarifies that this means we'll pull the
>>         element out in 2.0, not 1.x.
> 
> Actually, we're talking about deprecating just one form of
> the value of the otherprops attribute, not an element.
> 
>>         Michael moves to deprecate otherprops in favor
>>         of adding new attributes. 
> 
> That was not my understanding.
> 
> I understood that we were just deprecating the grouped 
> value syntax in otherprops.  I did not understand us to 
> be deprecating the otherprops attribute completely.
> 
> I request that we clarify this decision and correct the 
> minutes as appropriate.

 From Michael's email to the list, I thought the same as Paul. However, 
during the actual meeting, I understood we were discussing removing the 
otherprops attribute. It may well be my misunderstanding. Please can 
someone clarify so I can correct the minutes if required.

> 
>>         JoAnn seconds. No objections.
>>
>>         DECISION: Deprecate otherprops with documentation
>>         to recommend adding attributes.
>>
>>         Discussion on whether implementations must support
>>         deprecated elements.  Consensus that they do not
>>         have to support deprecated elements.
> 
> I don't remember an official vote/decision on this--did I 
> miss something here?
> 
> I thought we just had a non-normative discussion about what
> implementations--in particular, the toolkit--should do about
> the deprecated grouped value syntax for otherprops.
> 
> Besides, it makes no sense to have any actual vote/decision 
> on this unless we plan to put something normative into the
> spec about support for deprecated things, and I don't remember
> seeing any suggested wording for such.
> 
> Assuming my memory of the status of this discussion is correct,
> I request that the minutes be corrected to reflect this.

I wrote "consensus", not "DECISION".
When there is a vote, I write "DECISION:" followed by a description of 
the actual formal decision taken by the TC. The "DECISION" is preceded 
by who moved, and whether there were any objections.

OTOH "consensus" is an informal agreement, not a formal TC decision.

If you prefer that I use other terms, please send me the terms you'd 
like me to use with a description of when to use each one.

> 
> 
>> . . .
>>
>>     * Remaining questions:
>>       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00034.html
>>
>>         Michael proposes to remove the following sentence:
>>         "The rule may be relaxed in future versions of DITA
>>         if a mechanism is added for tracking dependencies
>>         between structural and domain specializations 
>>         in use by a document type."
>>         DECISION: To be removed. No objections.
>>
>>         Michael proposes to remove the reference to architectural
>>         forms from the class attribute discussion.
>>         Some TC members pointed out the comparison may not be
>>         useful as an explanation of the class attribute. Proposal
>>         to rewrite to stand on its own to describe the class
> attribute. 
>>         Michael: This is only a wording change. If no objections,
>>         I'll make the change.
>>         Paul: Why not just remove the sentence making the comparison
>>         and leave the rest?
> 
> Actually, that's not what I said, and...
> 
>>         Michael: yes, that works.
> 
> ...no, that doesn't work (and Michael didn't say that works).
> 
> What I said is that it doesn't just work to remove that sentence
> since the following sentence which starts:
> 
>   Also, DITA  scopes values by module type (for example topic
>   type, domain type, or map type) instead of document type...
> 
> which will no longer make sense when we remove the previous
> sentence.  That is what I pointed out, and Michael agreed.
> 
> So...
> 
>>         DECISION: Remove the following text:
>>         "It's something like an  architectural forms attribute,
>>         except that it contains multiple mappings in a single
>>         attribute, instead of one mapping per attribute."
> 
> ...in fact, what we decided was that Michael would remove
> that sentence and then we directed the editor (Michael) to
> wordsmith the following sentence appropriately.

I'll fix the minutes with this. Maybe I should have my hearing checked...

> 
>> . . .
>>
>>         Don: Has anyone used the 1.1 DTDs yet?
>>         Gershon: we are integrating DITA 1.1 DTDs into a
>>         CMS at this time, and expect to have a fully working
>>         product implementation in about 2 weeks.
>>         Paul: We have included the 1.1 DTDs in the Arbortext
>>         Editor that was released recently.
> 
> In fact, we are using/redistributing both the latest DITA 1.1
> DTDs and XSDs in Arbortext 5.3 which we just released 2006 Dec 29.

I used DTDs loosely in the minutes. I'll update them with the detailed 
information you've supplied.
> 
> paul
> 
> 

As soon as I get clarification from TC members on the list about the 
otherprops issue we discussed, I'll update the minutes and post the 
revised version.

While I try my best to record the meetings accurately, I do make 
mistakes and appreciate TC members posting corrections to the list.

Gershon.