Groups - DITA TC meeting 06 August 2019 uploaded

[Kristen Eberlein<kris@eberleinconsulting.com>]

        Submitter's message
        Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 6 August 2019
Recorded by Debra Bissantz

Attendance: 

Business:
=========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Zoe Lawson, Carsten Brennecke, Stan D, Keith Schengili-Roberts (late)
Present: Dawn Stevens, Kris Eberlein, Bill Burns, Robert Anderson, Eliot Kimber, Chris Nitchie, Joyce Lam, Scott Hudson, Carlos Evia, Deb Bissantz, Jacquie Samuels

2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
Moved by Kris, 2nd by Bill Burns, approved by TC

3. Announcements:
New member from IBM. 
Alan Houser on administrative absence from TC.

4. Action Items: - No updates

5. DITAweb review of multimedia domain topics
Kris - Thanks to all who participated. The hyperlink includes an attachment with all of the comments and replies in the review. Everybody made good points. Glad to have this wrapped up.
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201907/msg00092.html (Eberlein, 24 July 2019)
Latest status:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201908/msg00020.html (Eberlein, 05 August 2019)

6. With multimedia coming, what happens to the object element?
Robert - This did come directly from comments in the review.
Main question - With audio and video, do we still need object? Yes, HTML5 still has all three. Object is used for lots of other stuff besides audio and video. 
Kris - Should we bring the Object element up to date with HTML5? Based on Roberts research, this seems to be the same as originally described. There are some new changes in HTML5 that we should probably add, such as security. This would be a straight forward updated. Eliot - Sounds good to me. 
Kris - This makes sense to me. 
Chris - While this seems straight forward, there really is no such thing as a trivial stage 3 proposal. 
Robert - As long as we follow the HTML 5, this should be simple.

Robert - Next question: Should we break out audio and video as base elements and then the sub-elements could be attributes. This will make them easier to use and match HTML5. This makes things easier for other people. 
Chris - My biggest issue is compatibility with DITA 1.3 and LwDITA. 
Carlos - I don't think there is going to be a LwDITA spec now. I think this will be released the same time DITA 2.0. Should we make LwDITA 1.3 compatible if it is not going to be released until DITA 2.0? This makes my book obsolete, 2nd edition.
Robert - I think if we had known originally, compatibility might not be as critical.
Kris - When ever we publish committee notes and books before a spec is released, we run the risk.
Robert - If LwDITA were coming out sooner, I might be more worried about compatibility with DITA 1.3. Now, it looks like they will be released about the same time. Maybe we go with a DITA 2.0 compatibility. If LwDITA is willing to become a DITA 2.0 compatible spec, this opens a lot of doors for other things.
Kris - Where do we want to leave this? Is this something you want to take back to the LwDITA committee.
Carlos - This is more a diplomatic thing. This was something that Michael Priestley originally came up with. I would like to take this back to him to see if he has any feelings. 
Kris - I think that is a good thing. I think you should have committee consensus on this. Since both specs will be released about the same time, it doesn't make sense to release a DITA 1.3 compatible multimedia domain at this time.
Robert - the business value of the DITA 1.3 multimedia domain was to have users using LwDITA years before DITA 2.0 is available. Now that is not the case.
Carlos - At this time, I don't think there are many people using XDITA. Most are using MDITA. I don't think we are breaking many implementations.
Chris - What stops us from releasing this in a GitHub for people to use?
Kris - We could if we think it is of value. We could release the DITA 1.3 multimedia domain as a committee note as planned. Then revamp what we do for audio and video for DITA 2.0. We need to make it clear that this is DITA 1.3 compatible. It will look different for DITA 2.0 and there will be a migration cost. The work is done. The documentation is done.
Chris - It is a shame to have people reinvent the wheel when we have it mostly done for them.
Kris - We can leave this hear for now. Carlos will take it back to the LwDITA committee. We can continue to do a business analysis.

7. Can DITAweb display tags?
Scott - During the review process, it was difficult to see if content had been marked up correctly. Is there a way to view tags or markup in the DITAweb interface? Are there any additional tools that could be used? We have been using oXygen's Content Fusion. But, with some of the requirements that the committee requires for historical artifacts, I'm not sure if Content Fusion can meet those requirements.
Kris - I think we have always asked reviewers to review in the PDF first and then copy those comments into DITAweb. The critical things here, when we arranged to use DITAweb, we had to go through OASIS for this. I argued that we needed a review tool, that we couldn't develop specs without it. We have to permanently keep our reviews archived. They need to be accessible to the general public. We need to collect statistics about the comments and resolutions. I included a copy of that in the hyperlink. We could look at Content Fusion. It might be useful for reviewing Stage 2 and Stage 3 proposals.
Scott - With Content Fusion, any of those review comments are stored as comments in the XML. You accept and reject those comments and update the XML. It doesn't seem that it captures any of those comments in a permanent record. You can captures a PDF of the reviewed document. 
Kris - We would have to force all reviewers to use oXygen, which we really can't do. I suggest that we try using Content Fusion for those stage 2 and stage 3 reviews.

8. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals

Initial discussion
#277: Change specialization base of imagemap
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201907/msg00076.html (Eberlein, 18 July 2019)
Kris - Because imagemap is a specialization of fig some things were limited, this proposal changes the specialization from div. Changing both imagemap and area to div. There will be some migration costs. I think this will be small. CCMS implementations that hard code the @class will be a hit.
Scott - Another migration cost will be styling applied based on the @class. 
Kris - I can update the proposal to include a mention of that.
Scott - You do mention that when you talk about the CCMS implementation that explicitly mention the @class.
Robert - Styling shouldn't be affected if you are using the @class correctly.
Scott - This will happen if you have fall back processing.
Kris - Should I updated to mention fall back processing.
Scott - I think it would be good.
Kris - Are we comfortable moving forward if I make this change.
No objections.

Reviewers needed for #278: Remove @lockmeta
Eliot, Dawn, Scott volunteered to review.

9. DITA 2.0 stage three proposals

Vote
None
Initial discussion
#253 Indexing changes
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201907/msg00073.html (Eberlein, 18 July 2019)

Joyce: I volunteered to look at that, I am still reviewing.
Kris - You are reviewing general indexing changes to the PDF. Bill Burns and Dawn reviewed this earlier. Bill, Eliot do you have any comments. 
Bill - Nothing from me. 
Eliot - I admit I didn't get a chance to review.
Kris - I did get comments from Bill and Dawn. I need to remove your name from the PDF. Do we want to give this another week for Joyce to finish reviewing?
Chris - I think it would be worthwhile to give it another week.

10. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals
Kris - We have a proposal that came from Michael. Robert, will you introduce this?

Simple table alignment with HTML table
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201907/msg00100.html (Michael Priestley, 30 August 2019)

Robert - This is really an attempt to reconcile problems that we have with tables. We have had many complaints about why do we have so many tables. When we started this, many of the editors already had support for CALS. We also wanted a table model that was less complex. With that legacy, we have always resisted adding to simple table. Now that LwDITA, we have need to add some support for other features, such as spanning. Most users needing simple tables are familiar with HTML tables rather than all the complexity available in the CALS table. We will still provide two table options, simple (HTML) with additional functionality and the complex (CALS). This is a mind shift changing simple to HTML table.
Eliot - Is this changing element names?
Robert - No, this is not changing element names. The element naming is similar already. We are adding new attributes. Somebody on the LwDITA committee took an action item to investigate the differences between the DITA simple table and the HTML table, morerows morecols are some I remember.
Eliot - What about accessibility?
Robert - If you include a header, the accessibility is included.
Eliot - I would be inclined to include the row header.
Robert - IBM takes accessibility seriously. Right now simple table has more options than CALS table. Simple table has the keycol option to set headers. This is on the simple table element. With that and the header elements, we have met all the requirements of IBM documents. I know Eliot, you have seen more complex tables. I don't think we want to go there for simple tables. I have not seen tables that complex. I'm inclined to leave that in the CALS table.
Eliot - I certainly like the alignment with HTML tables. My only concern is that people would think this are like HTML tables and then be disappointed when they are not. 
Robert - We are relying on Alan's investigation for that.
Eliot - HTML does not have colspec, 
Robert - That sounds like CALS at that point.
Kris - I would like to see how this moves forward. This is elegant and would not require any migration for any simple tables out there. This gives LwDITA more flexibility than what is currently out there for simple table. If users don't want all of the changes, they could constrain the model to get the simple table.
Chris - This could be a targeted based specialization, but could also be valuable as change to base.
Kris - Are we okay with moving this forward.
Eliot - I'm good with that.
Kris - Robert will you create a card for this. Carlos, will you convey this back to the LwDITA committee. This proposal will also require a champion who is a voting member of the TC. This proposal will remain in limbo until we have a champion.

Allow

in same locations as

Kris - Scott there isn't a lot of time to discuss this proposal. We will put this at the top of the agenda for next week.
Scott - That's fine.

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201906/msg00026.html (Hudson, 10 June 2019)

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201906/msg00027.html (Kimber, 10 June 2019)

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201906/msg00028.html (Eberlein, 10 June 2019)

Additional e-mails ...
New e-mails:

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201907/msg00058.html (Hudson, 16 July 2019)

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201907/msg00060.html (Anderson, 16 July 2019)


11. Closing announcement:
Kris - There is a new working draft 08 of the DITA 2.0 spec available that includes the multimedia and indexing changes.

11:57 noon ET close
- Ms. Debra Bissantz
-- Kristen Eberlein

Document Name: DITA TC meeting 06 August 2019

---

No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

---

Submitter: Kristen Eberlein
Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC
Folder: Meeting Notes
Date submitted: 2019-08-12 07:11:39