DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 28 August 2007 Recorded by France Baril The DITA Technical Committee met on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 at 08:00am PT for 60 minutes. -- Approve minutes from previous business meetings: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00089.html (14 August 2007) http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00091.html (21 August 2007) Don Day moves that we approve, Rob Frankland, seconds, no objection. Don: 2 corrections to the agenda: 12060, off list and Second Life annoucnement already done last week. -- Discussions on prepared proposals: 1. #12055 - Define Map Referencing Behaviors (Anderson) http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/24910/IssueNumber12055.html Robert Anderson briefs us on the proposal: this is not the final wording, but it provides the guidelines on map referencing. Paul G: There were off list discussions on August 20th and so forth… are issues closed? Rob: What needs to be resolved, was done during discussions. Suggestions on encoding behavior would extend the proposal. Eric: I don't think it is resolved. Once processing behavior starts being encoded, how does it stop? Rob: Need to go on list for another week. Paul: I think it's important to bring back discussions online. Can you bring in back on list to TC? ACTION Rob to sumarise and publish the issue on the list. Don: This is differed for next week. -- 2. #12008 - vocabulary and integration constraints (Hennum) http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00083.html (use case, Priestley) http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00096.html (update, Hennum) http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00098.html (pickett) (latest) Don: Here the agenda has key updates. Erik H.: replied to Deb and swould like to suggest to review the proposal and see if medigate to some level complexity issues. MP: proposes to simplify the message 00096 to include details in issue 12008. Erik H.: Here is a walk throught changes: - In solution section: bullets id the benefits of providing constraints. - Constraint implementation is a new section that explains that this proposal does not superseed XML Schema and DTD mechanisms. - Constraint rule is a new section. It clarifies formally what constraint means. - Section on declaring constraint: It has been rewritten based on comments: do not declare constaints at element level, but rather at module level. - The section on conref and generalisation processing teases out the effects of constraints of conref in generalisation: what's prevented, and allowed. - Finally, schema implementation and DTD have been revised from element to module granularity. Eliot: About conreffing topic… why conref a topic instead of a map to pull it in. Erik: I meant to say conref element from a topic, not just a topic. Erik: To people interested in complimentary proposal for unifyinig topics and domains: would like to have draft done today to be able to send it for preliminary review this week to people who had interest and then to the TC next week or by this end of this week. Don: Are we ready to vote on this? Erik: We had already approved this as a candidate, since the design was updated yesterday, it is too soon to vote, so we better wait next week. Don: Then we could have both for consideration next week. Please everyone read closely and we will review next week. -- 3. #12035 - generic collation element (Pickett) " http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00080.html (update, Pickett) Alan stepping in on Deb behalf… Can summarise outstanding issues: Don: no action on this today? Alan: can we have brief discussion on issues at hand? Don: any comments? Alan: If none: this comment involve clarity and precision on the language. Difficult to fix with 2 other issues: 1. There seem to be a possible conflict with list in index-sort-as and which would take precedent… I think there is room for both in the DITA specs. Mpriestley: We are doing something in 1.2 implementation that resolves the conflict with index-sort-as. Alan: Will check. Other issue: The proposal does not mention rules for the sorting. Using locale to instantiante sorting role. Paul: Still not sure I understand because DITA does not yet have details on sorting of indexes. Eliot: It is scary to have no indication on processing expectations. Collation rules are always going to be locale defined. It gives you a place to name rule. Eliot: All DITA needs to do is provide a collation rule when needed, and it's there to use for stuff more advanced for those who want it. Paul: It does not define any processing at all, by definition DITA does not define processing, it does not define redition specifics. But it is a fact that to do collation right, you have to have collation properties. Eliot: What user can expect from vanilla spec? DITA spec define processing for conref and other things... Don: can we call processing behavior instead? Paul: Yes maybe, it's a fuzzy line to define vocabulaty to use for that. If someone pickups DITA specs and use collation, will they see anything diff? No, not unless they have extra processing that goes beyong what DITA says. To use collation takes a key, but the key does not require you to do collation. Alan: And why not specify that you have to take it. This is an issue for search results. Paul: Stuff to kick around… will take it to email. Interesting to talk about what to do about errors. If we decide not to define processing with it, it may not need to say anything about errors. Eliot: Probably need to say if processor decide to use it how it should use it: with multiple collate-as element, how do you decide which one to use? Paul: What the DITA specs should say is that if there is more then one elem, use the first, but maybe someone will decide to use the 2nd. Eliot: We are defining what to do if I have 2 lang: one says Jap, one says English. Somewhere, we have to say what processing does either as a rule or as a guideline. MP. We are not defining behavior, we do not, we can leave it to implementors to implement. Eliot: We should have at least guidelines. Eliot: Don't see problems in having applicability rules for collate-as. It is not the same as defining processing. Paul: Collate-as provides a sort of metadata piece of info for its parent. We could say that the 1st collate-as child gives collate-as value for that parent… then we have addressed the issue without saying what is an error and what is not. Is this reasonable? Alan: What if I want to choose another one? Don: issue to take to the list at is point? Eliot, Alan, Paul: Yes, yes, yes. -- (Note: Discussing is on12 060, not 12 020, there was an error in the agenda. The first link is valide for 12 060, not the two others.) 4. #12020 - element (NOT same as "Verbatim inclusions of text") " http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200707/msg00036.html " http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00050.html " http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00099.html (pickett) (latest) Paul: We agreed that MP will have another proposal for design. MP: Yes, this is waiting on me. 12 020 is not ready for proposal, it should be differed to next week. Paul: Deb sent mess on 14ht, who is doing. Eliot: The requirement documents have links for proposal for Prescod from Nov. 2005… Paul: confused by links, need to have …leader. Stan Dorothee thinks he was champion and drop the ball, will send mail to summarise and see if Oaul P proposal still viable. ACTION: Michael to provide the new design proposal. ACTION: Stan to summarise the issue and see if Paul P's proposal is still viable. -- End of discussion on proposals. -- Other dicussions: 2. ITEM: Translation SC: draft available for approval Best Practice for Leveraging Legacy Translation Memory when Migrating to DITA http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00097.html Don: Last night JoAnn sent updates, are there any comments? DonL I move that we accept the document as up loaded, as a committee draft. Alan Hoser seconds. No objection. JoAnn: Please members of committeee send this to people. Qst about loosing TM assets comes up, and this answers the concerns. Don: JoAnn you have a great success rate? JoAnn: We had a project with 70% exact matching from Word documents to DITA. 3. FYI: Requirements document for Acronym (DITA Translation SC): http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/AcronymRequirements Don: I would like to remind you that the translation TC has a document on handling acronyms. Please take a look, Consider use cases in your organizations. Things that may not have been considered in this document. Additional requirements and comments would give opportnity for great design work. Expecting comments in two weeks so subcomittee can work with it. JoAnn: Please also look at the draft in the archive of the subcommittee page, the best practices for conref are closely related () to other is best practices. This one is a proposal, but best practices would give info on what issues are found in translating conrefs. Don: does this item have a number on list yet? JoAnn: Yes but, I don't remember what it was. 4. ITEM: DITA 1.1 errata collection Any more? How soon to close on a 1.1.1 patch update? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00094.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200708/msg00095.html Eric Sirois and others have been working on the Schema issues. Are we close to resolving issues with the different parsers' logics? Eric: yes we have gotten rid of the issue. Don: Should we make the patch available as quickly as we can or should we wait for other bugs? So what is the timing for posting this patch? All: No answer Don: next week, two weeks? Paul: We don't have erratum process? Do we. Don: We don't have an errata. It means going through approval process. Paul: Only way to solve bug = new release? Eliot: We have something that points to errata page. Paul: We should just announce that there then… I don't want us to find ourselves doing a release once a week. Don: If not a critical patch, we should wait to have more bugs resolved. Don: We'll keep it as live issue and keep it for next week. 8:50-8:55 Announcements/Opens 8:55 Meeting is adjourned