dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 8 November 2022 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:32:43 +0000 (UTC)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Kris will work on migration guide ordering.
2. Eliot will review cascading attribute content and take a crack at it.
3. Nancy and Zoe will review final accesibility content.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 8 November 2022
Recorded by Hancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Attendance:
===========
Robert Anderson, Bill Burns, Kris Eberlein, Nancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Gershon Joseph, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Eric Sirois, Frank Wegmann, Jim Tivy, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Todd Thorne, Melanie Petersman, Tammy Crowley, Kendall Shaw
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Stan Doherty, Dawn Stevens
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
01 November 2022
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202211/msg00010.html (Lawson, 05 November 2022)
Kris moved, 2nd Frank, approved by TC
3. Announcements
- Gershon is leaving Precision Content, so leaving TC
- Dawn, Robert, and Frank will be out for DITAEurope/ConVeX next week (Dawn at tcworld this week).
4. Action items - none
5. Volunteer tasks
Dawn: Examples for general task and tutorialinfo.
[hold till Dawn is back]
6. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DeadlinesDITA2.0
Combined stage two and three
(Kimber) Change @poster to (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/753)
08 November 2022: Vote by TC
[vote today, below]
Stage three
(Anderson) New impose-role attribute (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/670)
07 November 2022: Submit to reviewers (Joseph, Wegmann)
?: Initial TC discussion
?: Vote by TC
- Kris; Frank, when will you be able to review this?
- Frank; end of week.
7. DITA 2.0 stage two/three combined proposals
Vote
#753 proposal
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202211/msg00002.html (Kimber, 01 November 2022)
[held till next week]
8. Review B: Concept and reference
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202211/msg00020.html (Eberlein, 08 November 2022)
- Kris; this isn't a big review, so it will be open just one week.
9. Changes from DITA 1.3 to DITA 2.0 -- What do we want in the spec?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202211/msg00005.html (Eberlein, 01 November 2022)
- Eliot; we need to have a summary of what's changed, maybe at the end of the spec. For the migration CN, we also need tasks for migrating. Question is; should the migration CN simply ref the spec, or duplicate it?
- Robert; probably better to duplicate it.
- Nancy; but how much can we single source it?
- Robert; not sure if that will be possible... They're different usages.
- Kris; do we need very granular descriptions, as Robert and Eliot recommend? Those would be helpful to have in both spec and CN; we don't need migration info in spec, except for pointing to CN.
- Eliot; I agree, it's enough to enumerate changes, and let CN handle migration.
- Kris; has anyone looked at 'changes' topics in previous specs? For versions 1.3 and 1.2, they have a very different tone and feel.
- Robert; previous 'changes' sections were basically feature lists for 1.2 or 1.3. It's good to have that kind of feature list in an accessible way, and we need that too. I think new stuff in 2.0 should come before the list of removed items.
- Tammy; maybe we should have new stuff, then modified, then removed.
- Robert; there are some things that are removed but replaced, some that were modified, and some removed with no replacement/modification.
- Kris; this version is just a first start, so we expect changes.
- Robert; I think the things referred to are changes to an existing feature, not replaced with something new.
- Kris; we should start with all of our new good stuff. I think Dawn organized it this way b/c some modified stuff affects backwards compatibility. e.g., removal of the indexinging domain, or splitting the programming domain into two parts, and those mean changes to dco shells. I don't think we want to get into granularity issues right now.
- Eliot; that could be handled in separate docs for techcontent or domains
- Kris; we could have a high-level 'key' to items, e.g. enhancements to hazardstatement domain, that affect backwards compatibility; we can note that those changes affect backwards compatibility. I wonder for this and CN, who are the users of that content? And what info are they looking for. wrt enhancements/features list?
- Todd; folks will want to look to see how their content is affected.
- Tammy; I would definitely want to know how my content is affected, also what's new and why I'd want to move to 2.0, and then know what I have to do to deal with in my content.
- Kris; Eliot, from migration POV, what are the different areas that 2.0 impacts?
- Eliot; that's a good question; I haven't thought about migration stuff in a while, so I'm not sure. I could break it down into 1) stuff removed; 2) small changes to markup details that may/may not affect your content; 3) removal of @s like navtitle/spectitle, that were deprecated long ago; and 4) major re-architecting, e.g., resouce-id as replacement for copy-to and alternative titles.
- Kris; thinking in terms of functional parts of DITA implementation; DITA source, stylesheets because we're changing @class, grammar files and specializations, everyone's doc shells.
- Scott; another is replacing substeps with nexted steps.
- Kris; that's another thing; that's a tech-content change, right now I'm only thinking about items for base spec. We'll need a slightly different version for techcontent. Is that a good approach?
- Eliot; currently, the migration guide is organized as 1) migrating source; 2) migrating stylesheets, then 3) processing, so this is a different organization.
- Kris; the organization I mentioned above is good if audience is looking for new features and 'what I get"; or if they're concerned with their DITA source, i.e., concerned with changes to elements, @s and especially @class changes.
- Eliot; It's a problem if the migration guide jdoesn't cover both.
- Robert; I agree; most folks are using both base and techcontent.
- Kris; I agree, but I think it would feel wrong to include techcontent stuff in base spec.
- Robert; right, but they should both be in [one] migration guide.
- Kris; and the techcontent version should include base.
- Nancy; strongly agree with that; we've always included base in techcontent.
- Kris; anyone willing to think about organization structures we can consider for spec?
- Kris; how should we organize the 'changes to 2.0' content? How do we want to order things, and what terminology do we want to use, wrt 'removed', 'replaced', 'modified', etc.? I'll take a very high-level pass at it.
- Nancy; are we planning to have migration guide ready at the same time as the spec? I think we need to.
- Kris; I'm hoping for that; at one point, we were thinking of a 'preparing for 2.0' CN.
- Scott; many of us have done conference presentations on that subject; it might not be hard to do one of those based on one or more of those conference presentations....
- Kris; no one seems to have time to do one of those.
- Scott; maybe there have been enough out there that compiling one would be simple.
- Kris; just remember that anything the TC puts out is more cumbersome that a conference presentation, because of OASIS overhead...
***ActionItem: Kris will work on migration guide ordering.
10. Processing cascading attributes
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202211/msg00016.html (Eberlein, 08 November 2022)
- Kris; this is very problematic content.
- Robert; it's an ugly algorithmic list of processing; it makes folks twitch when they read it; and it's hard to be sure it hits all edge cases.
- Eliot; it should be written in a declarative way, not procedural way.
- Kris; but I do think there's a strict sort of order they have to happen in..
- Eliot; yes, but the procedural order implies a specific type of processing. A better way would be along the lines of 'given this starting state, this is what the right answer is, whatever way you use to get to this answer.'
- Kris; is that possible with this content?
- Eliot; yes, the question is, how difficult will it be to understand? Or, you can give formalistic description of what you want, then give the algorithm as guidance.
- Kris; last time we discussed this, many TC members couldn't follow the algorithm, so it definitely needs to be clearer.
***ActionItem: Eliot will review this and take a crack at it.
- Eliot; one way to deal with it might be 'at what point do you have values?' I'll take a stab at it.
- Kris; part of the complexity is the sheer number of variables
- Eliot; but that can be expressed by giving precedence rules.
- Kris; reframing in terms of precedence rules is critical.
- Robert; but some of the confusion is that some of the precedence rules involve processing; e.g., you have to evaluate 'x' before a given processing step, so you have to process that. I'm looking forward to seeing your effort, Eliot...
- Kris; it's like the work figuring out changes from 1.3 to 2.0; let's get started on it and then fix it up.
11. Review O: Accessibility
Opening of review: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202206/msg00033.html (Eberlein, 14 June 2022)
Important: Specific requirements for how reviewers should enter review comments in Content Fusion
Status: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202206/msg00044.html (Eberlein, 21 June 2022)
NEW Final status
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202211/msg00004.html (Eberlein, 01 November 2022)
- Kris; all open work items from accessibility review are now complete; see latest email. thanks to keith for new examples. in sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.4.
***ActionItem: Nancy and Zoe will review.
12. DITAVAL file syntax
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202210/msg00043.html (Jim Tivy, 23 October 2022)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202210/msg00049.html (Kendall Shaw, 26 October 2022)
- Kris; Jim, did you look at RNG for ditaval?
- Jim; I did, and also re-read conditional processing, so I'm thinking about it more. The problem I had was I didn't get an overview of everything that's possible.
- Kris; was that 2.0 or 1.3?
- Jim; 1.3, if it's been significantly changed for 2.0, I can look at that.
- Kris; we did review all ditaval elements, so it's been redone and reviewed for 2.0. And we'll have an upcoming review for architectural topics about conditional processing. we know we could improve those.
- Jim; if you review it later, I'll be happy to be part of the review.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]