MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: MEETING MINUTES -- 31 AUG 2004 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES -- 31 AUG 2004 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE --
*** Please see Action Items and Decision Summary at the end ***
** Agenda **
------------
1. Roll call
2. Review/approve minutes from 24 August
- http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200408/msg00093.html
3. Spec review process (need Michael and JoAnn)
4. Resume discussion on current issues (deferred from last week):
- Namespace for DITA?
- Which version of CALS table model?
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200408/msg00042.html
- Conref and XInclude? (no recent discussion--is this "in"
or "out"?
- S1000D
- long term recommendations?
- for spec: general separation of class architecture
from implementation vocabularies
- Terminology
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200408/msg00064.html
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200408/msg00099.html
5. DTD cleanup
- Alignment convention (elements, attributes, comments,
etc.)
- Testing the DTDs and Schemas
6. AOB?
** Minutes **
-------------
1. Roll call
- Members: Paul Grosso, Yas Etessam, Mike Wethington, Wendy
Hambledon, Michael Priestley, David Schell, Paul Antonov,
JoAnn Hackos, Mary McRae, Deborah Lapeyre, Eliot Kimber,
Seraphim Larsen, Bruce Esrig, Robin Cover, Sharon Veach,
Don Day
- We do have quorum (16/22)
- Observers and visitors: David Brainard, Nancy Harrison,
Tyde Richards
2. Review/approve minutes from 24 August
- http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200408/msg00093.html
- No comments; action items were reviewed.
- Minutes approved.
3. Spec review process (need Michael and JoAnn)
- Don updated Michael on the review process we adopted last
meeting.
- Michael and JoAnn would like all comments to come directly
to both of them.
- Nothing more to discuss.
4. Resume discussion on current issues (deferred from last
week):
- Namespace for DITA?
- Which approach should we take?
- Put it in the spec? -- How much can we afford to
put into the spec this time around?
- Just recommend a "best practice"? -- What "best
practices" can we recommend for those who require
namespaces?
- Discussion --
- Eliot -- Eliot summarized the discussion of this
topic that's been taking place on the list.
- Don -- Let's create a subcommittee to work on this
issue and come to a conclusion. It would include
Michael, Eliot, and Erik. Bruce Esrig would like
to put forward some questions for them also.
- Action Required for Don -- Get this set up.
- Which version of CALS table model?
-
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200408/msg00042.html
- Discussion --
- Don conducted an IBM survery -- Yes, there will be
a migration hit, and it will not be painless. But
we want to make the right choice.
- Don -- Is there any remaining desire for the CALS
table model?
- Michael -- CALS doesn't handle some DITA-specific
table features.
- Don -- Yes, it will need to be "DITAfied"
- Michael -- As long as we have the DITA attributes
added and the row header attributes added, then it
looks OK to him.
- Michael -- He thinks the target should be the CALS
Exchange Model with some DITA stuff added.
- Debbie -- She wanted to support the choice of CALS
Exchange Model also.
- Don -- Any other discussion on CALS vs. CALS
Exchange? It seems the proposal on the table is
to adopt the CALS Exchange model instead of the
full CALS model.
- Proposal -- Adopt the CALS Exchange model with
the addition of some DITA-specific attributes and
structure.
- No objections
- Approved by acclamation.
- Conref and XInclude? (no recent discussion--is this "in"
or "out"?
- Discussion --
- Don -- Where are we on this discussion?
- Recommends that we stay with Conref for now
and make a comment on the difficulties of
including XInclude.
- Paul Grosso -- XInclude does some things that
Conref doesn't do. But this has nothing to do
with DITA per se -- it is an XML thing. We
probably don't need to say anything about it at
all in the DITA spec, except perhaps some comments
about *why* we're not saying anything. Is there
any reason we should say that people should *not*
use XInclude?
- Eliot -- Trying to change the definition of conref
at this point in time is not practical.
- Don -- The proposal, then, would not to conflate
conref with xinclude or vice-versa, but to keep
conref and add an FAQ explaining that xinclude is
an XML technology that can be used with DITA.
- Proposal -- No relationship needs to be stated
between conref and xinclude; we will keep conref in
the 1.0 spec, and add an FAQ explaining that xinclude
is an XML technology that can be used with DITA.
- No objections to this wording
- Approved by acclamation.
- S1000D
- Not covered -- no time.
- Terminology
- Not covered -- no time.
5. DTD cleanup
- Not covered -- no time.
6. Face-to-face meeting?
- Not covered -- no time.
7. AOB?
- Not covered -- no time.
** Summary of Decisions **
--------------------------
- Decided -- To adopt the CALS Exchange model with the addition
of some DITA-specific attributes and structure.
- Decided -- No relationship needs to be stated between conref
and xinclude; we will keep conref in the 1.0 spec, and add an
FAQ explaining that xinclude is an XML technology that can be
used with DITA.
** Action Required **
---------------------
017 Shawn Jordan -- Post to the TC list his ideas about general
extensibility and the creation of new elements not
necessarily descended from the Topic element. Still open
(not an immediate deliverable -- for post-1.0).
021 JoAnn Hackos, Michael Priestley -- Summarize the discussion
of substitution and post to the TC list. Still pending as of
7/20/04.
022 Don, Michael -- Put together a "self-study" tutorial/demo,
as per JoAnn's comments regarding the DITA sessions. Still
pending as of 7/20/04.
026 Michael -- See how Conref and XInclude contrast with SGML.
Still pending as of 7/20/04.
036 Shawn Jordan -- Investigate where to point the DITA
namespace -- where does the URL point? Maybe an OASIS page
that describes what DITA does, etc. Still pending 8/17/04.
040 Don -- Cull the past minutes and discussion list to create
an inventory of all the things we need to close on in order
to create the 1.0 spec. Create a list of these items and
post it in the Documents area of the website. >>> This will
be ongoing.
042 All -- Consider need for and practicality of 2-3 day
face-to-face meeting in late October in order to resolve
final technical issues in advance of final editorial work.
>>> On agenda for today, 8/31/04.
043 Michael Priestley -- Add a straw-man audience statement to
the introduction.
046 Don? -- Incorporate review comments from today's discussion
into the 1.0 draft (8/17/04).
047 Erik Hennum -- Start discussion on the TC list about
separating the spec into two specs -- one for the
architecture and one for the implementation vocabulary. <<<
Closed as of 8/31/04.
048 Eliot and Deborah -- Start discussion on the TC list about
the formatting of the DTD/schemas. <<< Closed as of
8/31/04.
049 Don Day -- Start discussion on the TC list about testing the
DTD/schemas and developing a "test suite". <<< Closed as of
8/31/04.
050 Don Day -- Start a subcommittee to resolve the namespace
issues. New as of 8/31/04.
** Issues to be Resolved **
---------------------------
005 All -- What should the scope and length of the conceptual
introduction be? >>> We'll get this from JoAnn.
006 All -- Should DITA specialization mechanism be documented in
a separate specification in order to make it easier to use
in other XML applications that otherwise have no
relationship to topic-based writing? >>> Ongoing.
007 All -- Decide which version of the CALS table model to use
-- either the full CALS model, or the CALS Exchange model.
>>> Resolved 8/31/04 -- see Decisions.
008 Namespace Subcommittee -- Decide namespace issues. New as
of 8/31/04.
<END>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]