[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes, 23 February 2010 DITA TC Meeting
(See attached file: 23Feb2010Minutes.txt) These are also pasted in the calendar notice for last week's DITA TC meeting. Regards, -- Don Day Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Architect, Lightweight DITA Publishing Solutions Email: dond@us.ibm.com 11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758 Phone: +1 512-244-2868 (home office) "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" --T.S. Eliot Agenda for 23 February 2010 DITA TC Meeting/Call >Minutes taken by Don Day 8:00-8:05 Roll call Approve minutes from previous business meetings: * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00055.html (16 Feb, 2010 Day) o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00072.html (Eberlein corrections) > Don moved, was seconded; carried by acclamation Subcommittee/liaison reports > skipped for today Business: 1. ITEM: DITA 1.2 specification > Kristen led the discussion for this section: * Business (edited by Joseph for 16 February TC meeting): a. Check on status of Mime type topic o Status update from Don o When ready, need to submit for TC review > Don has not had an update. Kristen suggested moving this item to Ongoing for tracking; we'll go with the plan of record > ACTION for DON: create a short topic with the proposed non-normative appendix, to be written this week. b. Status of authors' work handling review #3 comments: > Kristen asked person by person about status. Concern about losing momentum--let's stay focused on these known work items. Would like to see goal of March 1 for completion. > Gershon has an upcoming business trip affecting his availability. Estimates March 14 for his completions. > Eliot has reviewed topics under specialization. Discussion about dates on tables. > Eliot had volunteered to do appendices. > ACTION for ELIOT: reivew the wiki pages wrt appendices table > ACTION for KRISTEN: update the appendices table to reflect Eliot as the author. c. Overlapping/redundant content issue o http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/201002/msg00010.html (Eberlein, 2 February 2010) o Check where we are with authors updating their topics to mark comments on redundant content o Are we ready for the next step (SWAT team meeting)? o Gershon has dealt with the collation topic (removed topic from map) > Would non-writer volunteers scan the reviewer comments for any obvious redundant area by Monday? (fresh eyes on the problem) > Rob Frankland volunteered > Michael Priestley > Sue-Laine > Kristen--we'll assume the remaining areas have been sufficiently cleared. > Jeff, Michael, Robert, Gershon for the SWAT team (Eliot would like to but will be travelling) > ACTION for KRISTEN: set up the meeting (before March 9) d. Revise schedule to accommodate the following items: o Extension on deadline for review #3 (four days) o An additional review for the SubjectScheme topic in the arch spec (new content, never reviewed) o An additional review for the rewritten Conformance topic o An additional internal review cycle (review #4) o Need to address the overlapping/redundant content problem o Need to review prototypes of documentation for the various packages > Eliot will press for Monday reviews. > Kristen will set up schedules based on the March 9 exit date for the SWAT team plan of attack. e. Acknowledgments in DITA 1.2 spec -- what should they contain? o http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/201002/msg00033.html (Eberlein, 9 February 2010) o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00067.html (Grosso reset discussion) o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00089.html (Mary McRae opinion) > Kristen quoted this OASIS goal in her amendment. "Individuals who have actively participated"--how do we interpret this phrase? > Don agreed with Jeff's suggestion that we put a stake in the ground. Kristen proposed a single list of acknowledgments that should include: * Authors of feature proposals * Authors of specification topics * Reviewers of specification topics * Implementors of DTDs and Schemas Bruce seconded. Discussion about contributions of folks no longer in the TC. > ACTION for DON: compile this list as Chair's responsibility. f. Conformance refinement: Use of "claims to be DITA aware" o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00068.html (Kimber opening note) o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00086.html (Ogden discussion reset) > Jeff noted one open question: for the list of things supported/not supported, was this dropped out of the conformance topic? > Sue-Laine had requested its removal since the statement could be padded by gregarious vendors. > Jeff notes that customers are the final judges of truth of vendor statements. > Sue-Laine: a simple list might be too simple. Could we ask vendors to be more detailed about what their support means? > Eliot: what can you require vendors to state? > MP: suggests that the Adoption TC could take on the customer/vendor aspects of this discussion, to help contextualize claims. > Dana: still considers this is worth opening for 1.3. > Kristen: How can we help send our concerns over to the Adoption TC? > Jeff: They could create a buyer's guide that includes a set of tests against claims. For the DITA TC, they could create its own list of what is and is not considered fundamental DITA capability. > ACTION for GERSHON: as our liaison to the Adoption TC, he will convey these intents to them within the approval cycle for 1.2. > Closed the open question of "what vendors should do" with that action > Jeff notes we still need to get them to list conformance, and there is the issue of evidence of support. > Eliot also proposed #4--that you list the document types if that is what you support (processing extensions) > Jeff: yes, and allow vendors to state how they support key references, for example. > Eliot: concern about implicit claims > Jeff: vendors should be able to make honest statements, allow customers to judge the claims. > Eliot: agreed, if we had such a crisp list of features. > MP: suggests that we continue with previous example of saying nothing, work in future on the essential list but not as input to current spec. > Sue-Laine went back to Eliot's "#4" as better than nothing? Fine for Jeff, but it only goes part of the way. > Eliot is okay with such a statement, but notes that we can't state it too firmly without a solid list. > Jeff moves to accept Eliot's statement, Sue-Laine suggested refinements. Since callers were dropping off, Don declared loss of quorum and recommended this motion be developed on the list for the TC's review next week. > Meeting adjourned 3 minutes past the hour.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]