OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

  • 1.  DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007

    Posted 01-05-2007 09:25
      |   view attached

    Attachment(s)

    txt
    DitaTCMeeting070102.txt   7 KB 1 version


  • 2.  RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007

    Posted 01-05-2007 15:42
    With due respect to (and appreciation for) Gershon's
    minute taking, there are several points that I believe
    may need correcting in last meeting's minutes.
    
    > 


  • 3.  RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007

    Posted 01-06-2007 02:52

    Re the decision to deprecate the otherprops grouped value syntax:
    >I don't remember an official vote/decision on this--did I
    miss something here?


    It went by quickly :-) We did have a motion and a second and no objection because it was faster than deciding whether it was actually necessary to do so.

    I believe your other points are all correct.

    Michael Priestley
    IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
    mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
    http://dita.xml.org/blog/25



    "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>

    01/05/2007 10:42 AM

    To
    <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
    cc
    Subject
    RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007





    With due respect to (and appreciation for) Gershon's
    minute taking, there are several points that I believe
    may need correcting in last meeting's minutes.

    >



  • 4.  RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007

    Posted 01-06-2007 16:17
    
    
    
    
    
    I think you misunderstood me.
     
    I know we voted "to deprecate the otherprops grouped value syntax". That was not the issue about which I said "I don't remember an official vote/decision on this--did I miss something here?".
     
    I said that about "Consensus that [implementations] do not have to support deprecated elements."
     
    The minutes show no motion and second for this issue, and I do not remember voting on it. Do you believe we did?
     
    Furthermore, it makes no sense to vote on such a statement because there are no implications to the spec unless we decide to put wording into the spec to this effect, and I certainly don't remember deciding to do that.
     
    So I still believe we had no vote/decision about "Consensus that [implementations] do not have to support deprecated elements" and still request that the minutes be corrected to reflect this (unless I am proven incorrect, in which case the minutes should be corrected to show the motion and second).
     
    paul
     


    From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
    Sent: Friday, 2007 January 05 20:52
    To: Grosso, Paul
    Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007


    Re the decision to deprecate the otherprops grouped value syntax:
    >I don't remember an official vote/decision on this--did I
    miss something here?


    It went by quickly :-) We did have a motion and a second and no objection because it was faster than deciding whether it was actually necessary to do so.

    I believe your other points are all correct.

    Michael Priestley
    IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
    mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
    http://dita.xml.org/blog/25



    "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>

    01/05/2007 10:42 AM

    To
    <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
    cc
    Subject
    RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007





    With due respect to (and appreciation for) Gershon's
    minute taking, there are several points that I believe
    may need correcting in last meeting's minutes.

    >



  • 5.  Re: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007

    Posted 01-08-2007 10:19
    Grosso, Paul wrote:
    > With due respect to (and appreciation for) Gershon's
    > minute taking, there are several points that I believe
    > may need correcting in last meeting's minutes.
    
    Nice to know someone reads the minutes :)
    
    ...
    
    >> 2.  ITEM: Ongoing review of 1.1 drafts
    >>
    >>     * Architectural Spec:
    >>       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00033.html
    >>
    >>         Don: Some list feedback on Michael's questions.
    >>
    >>         Michael: Should we deprecate the grouped value
    >>         syntax for conditional property values in otherprops?
    >>         List discussion was in favor of deprecating.
    >>
    >>         Paul clarifies that this means we'll pull the
    >>         element out in 2.0, not 1.x.
    > 
    > Actually, we're talking about deprecating just one form of
    > the value of the otherprops attribute, not an element.
    > 
    >>         Michael moves to deprecate otherprops in favor
    >>         of adding new attributes. 
    > 
    > That was not my understanding.
    > 
    > I understood that we were just deprecating the grouped 
    > value syntax in otherprops.  I did not understand us to 
    > be deprecating the otherprops attribute completely.
    > 
    > I request that we clarify this decision and correct the 
    > minutes as appropriate.
    
     From Michael's email to the list, I thought the same as Paul. However, 
    during the actual meeting, I understood we were discussing removing the 
    otherprops attribute. It may well be my misunderstanding. Please can 
    someone clarify so I can correct the minutes if required.
    
    > 
    >>         JoAnn seconds. No objections.
    >>
    >>         DECISION: Deprecate otherprops with documentation
    >>         to recommend adding attributes.
    >>
    >>         Discussion on whether implementations must support
    >>         deprecated elements.  Consensus that they do not
    >>         have to support deprecated elements.
    > 
    > I don't remember an official vote/decision on this--did I 
    > miss something here?
    > 
    > I thought we just had a non-normative discussion about what
    > implementations--in particular, the toolkit--should do about
    > the deprecated grouped value syntax for otherprops.
    > 
    > Besides, it makes no sense to have any actual vote/decision 
    > on this unless we plan to put something normative into the
    > spec about support for deprecated things, and I don't remember
    > seeing any suggested wording for such.
    > 
    > Assuming my memory of the status of this discussion is correct,
    > I request that the minutes be corrected to reflect this.
    
    I wrote "consensus", not "DECISION".
    When there is a vote, I write "DECISION:" followed by a description of 
    the actual formal decision taken by the TC. The "DECISION" is preceded 
    by who moved, and whether there were any objections.
    
    OTOH "consensus" is an informal agreement, not a formal TC decision.
    
    If you prefer that I use other terms, please send me the terms you'd 
    like me to use with a description of when to use each one.
    
    > 
    > 
    >> . . .
    >>
    >>     * Remaining questions:
    >>       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00034.html
    >>
    >>         Michael proposes to remove the following sentence:
    >>         "The rule may be relaxed in future versions of DITA
    >>         if a mechanism is added for tracking dependencies
    >>         between structural and domain specializations 
    >>         in use by a document type."
    >>         DECISION: To be removed. No objections.
    >>
    >>         Michael proposes to remove the reference to architectural
    >>         forms from the class attribute discussion.
    >>         Some TC members pointed out the comparison may not be
    >>         useful as an explanation of the class attribute. Proposal
    >>         to rewrite to stand on its own to describe the class
    > attribute. 
    >>         Michael: This is only a wording change. If no objections,
    >>         I'll make the change.
    >>         Paul: Why not just remove the sentence making the comparison
    >>         and leave the rest?
    > 
    > Actually, that's not what I said, and...
    > 
    >>         Michael: yes, that works.
    > 
    > ...no, that doesn't work (and Michael didn't say that works).
    > 
    > What I said is that it doesn't just work to remove that sentence
    > since the following sentence which starts:
    > 
    >   Also, DITA  scopes values by module type (for example topic
    >   type, domain type, or map type) instead of document type...
    > 
    > which will no longer make sense when we remove the previous
    > sentence.  That is what I pointed out, and Michael agreed.
    > 
    > So...
    > 
    >>         DECISION: Remove the following text:
    >>         "It's something like an  architectural forms attribute,
    >>         except that it contains multiple mappings in a single
    >>         attribute, instead of one mapping per attribute."
    > 
    > ...in fact, what we decided was that Michael would remove
    > that sentence and then we directed the editor (Michael) to
    > wordsmith the following sentence appropriately.
    
    I'll fix the minutes with this. Maybe I should have my hearing checked...
    
    > 
    >> . . .
    >>
    >>         Don: Has anyone used the 1.1 DTDs yet?
    >>         Gershon: we are integrating DITA 1.1 DTDs into a
    >>         CMS at this time, and expect to have a fully working
    >>         product implementation in about 2 weeks.
    >>         Paul: We have included the 1.1 DTDs in the Arbortext
    >>         Editor that was released recently.
    > 
    > In fact, we are using/redistributing both the latest DITA 1.1
    > DTDs and XSDs in Arbortext 5.3 which we just released 2006 Dec 29.
    
    I used DTDs loosely in the minutes. I'll update them with the detailed 
    information you've supplied.
    > 
    > paul
    > 
    > 
    
    As soon as I get clarification from TC members on the list about the 
    otherprops issue we discussed, I'll update the minutes and post the 
    revised version.
    
    While I try my best to record the meetings accurately, I do make 
    mistakes and appreciate TC members posting corrections to the list.
    
    Gershon.
    
    


  • 6.  RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007

    Posted 01-08-2007 15:27
     
    
    > 


  • 7.  RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007

    Posted 01-08-2007 16:30

    > > > I understood that we were just deprecating the grouped
    > > > value syntax in otherprops.  I did not understand us to
    > > > be deprecating the otherprops attribute completely.
    > > >
    > > > I request that we clarify this decision and correct the
    > > > minutes as appropriate.
    > >
    > >  From Michael's email to the list, I thought the same as
    > > Paul. However,
    > > during the actual meeting, I understood we were discussing
    > > removing the
    > > otherprops attribute. It may well be my misunderstanding. Please can
    > > someone clarify so I can correct the minutes if required.
    >
    > Michael, Don, perhaps one of you can clarify.


    My understanding was that we were voting to deprecate the grouped value syntax in otherprops, not to deprecate the attribute itself.


    Michael Priestley
    IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
    mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
    http://dita.xml.org/blog/25


  • 8.  RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007

    Posted 01-08-2007 20:59
     
    
    > 


  • 9.  RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007

    Posted 01-09-2007 06:27
    This one won't make the 16th, Paul. But we've got good accountability for
    the past week.  Robert and I spent many hours working on the Language
    Spec--see the greatly revised comment record at
    http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Fix_list_for_1%2e1_Language_Spec_draft .
    The book is building cleanly now, if anyone is interested in an advance
    copy to begin looking at the items marked as completed. Remaining are some
    open questions that I'll bring up for resolution, and the mechanics of
    showing change regions (it will need to be formatted by the IBM system
    again in order to show change bars, as DITA OT's PDF tools do not currently
    show revisions). But it is also very much improved from the reviews of Alan
    and Robert--otherwise it would have been going out with numerous omissions
    and errors that had not been fixed (in many cases not even reported) yet.
    
    Robert also got the page count down below 500 pages (on the DITA OT test
    runs) thanks to some reorganization to minimize repetition of common
    attribute descriptions.
    
    Regards,
    --
    Don Day
    Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
    IBM Lead DITA Architect
    Email: dond@us.ibm.com
    11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758
    Phone: +1 512-838-8550
    T/L: 678-8550
    
    "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
     Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
       --T.S. Eliot
    
    
                                                                               
                 "Grosso, Paul"