[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]