OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only

DITA TC Meeting Minutes 27 August 2024

  • 1.  DITA TC Meeting Minutes 27 August 2024

    Posted 09-03-2024 02:19
      |   view attached

    ActionItems:   
    1. Kris will respond to Adam Retter about why he got a link to the out-of-date LwD material on OASIS site, and how we can't move or hide it.
    2. Frank will respond to Adam on what the other LwD links are, and which links are the best for him to use.
    3. Kris will put in link to latest LwD repo from  the OASIS TC home page.

    y===============================================
    Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
    Tuesday, 27 August 2024
    Recorded by Nancy Harrison
    link to agenda for this meeting:    
    https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/wiki/Previous-agendas


    Attendance:
    ===========
    Robert Anderson, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Nancy Harrison, Scott Hudson, Bob Johnson, Eliot Kimber, Zoe Lawson, Christina Rothwell, Eric Sirois, Leroy Steinbacher, Dawn Stevens, Frank Wegmann 


    Business
    ========

    Regrets:
    ***ActionItem; Kris will talk to OASIS about meeting invites/series/issues

    1. Approve minutes from previous business meeting
            13 August 2024 (Harrison, 15 August 2024)  https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/dita-tc-meeting-minutes-13-august-2024
    Kris moved, 2nd Eliot. approved by TC


    2. Announcements
            Call for speakers: DITA Europe, 17-18 2025, Copenhagen, Denmark. Deadline is 01 October 2024. https://ditaeurope.infomanagementcenter.com/call-for-speakers/
            Call for speakers: ConVEx 2025, 07 - 09 San Jose CA, April 2025  https://convex.infomanagementcenter.com/call-for-speakers-2025/
    - Kris; good news, announcing that Mayo has and RFP out to vendors to completely retool our tool stack for DITA.


    3. New indexing review: Dave Alvin
            14 August 2024: Opening of review https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/base-spec-review-dave-alvin-indexes-and-index-elements-take-two
            26 August 2024: Interim status of review https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/update-on-2nd-indexing-review-dave-alvin
    [no discussion needed]


    4. Open items from Dave Alvin review
            26 August 2004: E-mail from Eberlein https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/open-items-from-indexing-review-dave-alvin
    - Kris; wrt my email above, first item is ;what about 'term' vs 'term or subject'? I don't know when/why 'subject' got introduced
    - Robert; me either; I think it was in context of indexterm, I think it's fine to just talk about 'term'
    - Kris; agree, adding 'subject' could lead to confusion, since it could be confused with 'subjectscheme.' I think we should just revert to 'term' and move on.
    [agreement by TC]
    - Kris; second item is edge cases.
    - Robert; if you have a leaf indexterm, that makes the page, not the root. do we need to clarify that this applies only to a generated indexterm?
    - Eliot; that's correct; in 1.x, we talked about merging, then we got rid of that, correctly, but that leaves open this issue.  I think we should leave language is it is, any attempt to clarify will lead us down a rathole. 
    - Kris; so we should just leave it as is?
    - Eliot; yes
    - Kris; also, you made the case that ranges are too restrictive.  We do allow ranges that span topics or maps, if the topics are child elements of the tree and range is defined in topic prolog, and for maps defined at the map level
    - Robert; previously. we had ugly language, wih a lot of implied end ranges. but the meaning of that was that you couldn't have a start range start in one doc and end in another. So with updates, we've gotten rid of implicit range, and clarified that ranges have to end within a topic or a map. Behavior hasn't changed, we're just more explicit
    - Eliot; and I've always thought that was wrong.
    - Robert; I'd consider that a new feature request.  It would require real changes to index processors. or otherwise, we'd have to say "there are no rules, but apps don't have to support it."
    - Kris; I'd rather stick with stricter rule, and have processors do what they do. and I also think this is a substantive change.
    - Dawn; My opinion is opposite to Eliot; I think a range should be able to go across topics. 
    - Robert; as Kris said, you can span topics, but you have to do it in a map
    - Eliot; that doesn't meet my requirement if I want to start a range in the middle of one topic and end in middle of another topic, rather than starting at the beginning of one and ending at the end of another.  I can't do that in either topic or map.  
    - Robert; you could use that justifcation to put anything in the spec. argues in favor of leaving it as status quo. anyone who needs it has already worked around the issue.
    - Eliot; if removing constraint would be a new feature, I wouldn't quibble with that. I'm sure I never cared about start-end processing at all.
    - Robert; and my index processing has mostly been HTML, and it's irrelevant for that.
    - Kris; so Eliot, you're willing to let our content stand?
    - Eliot; yes
    - Kris; I just want the processors to work. at 1.3, none of the DITA processors handled indexes in any real way.
    - Eliot; and FOP doesn't render index ranges in any way.
    - Kris; for 4th item,  I'm trying to work out what people were trying -to communicate, if you want a range specified for a secondary entry, you have to have start and end @s in the secondary entry. If that's what we're trying to say, can we imporve the phrasing?
    - Eliot; not sure why the statement is even necessary, are indexterm @ends supposed to never have content?
    - Robert; @end of a range should never have content, it's just essentially an ID ref. language was meant to indicate how to handle an @end range for a secondary entry, 
    - Eliot; why would it matter?
    - Robert; we have to tell people what to do; should @end be      on secondary range, or only in first?
    - Eliot; if you start a range with secondary term, then it has to have it's own @end, or it's not a secondary term at all.
    - Robert; I don't think language is clear today. 
    - Kris; I think we say, if you do a range for secondary or lower term , start and end elements have to be at same level.
    - Eliot; but this doesn't say that...
    - Kris; that's why this comment.
    - Eliot; 2 things need to be said
    1. an indexterm with an end element, if the end has content, it's ignored and 
    2. if an start/end range is in a secondary indexterm, start and end have to be at same level.
    - Kris; so for first bullet item on this page, we leave that in?
    - Eliot; so, you can't establish a range on a non-leaf, where a leaf is an indexterm that has no child indexterms.
    - Kris; leave the ignore...' as is
    - Kris; do we need an example, or if we amend language, is example not necessary?  I don't like to have examples in a topic where we're talking about normative rules.
    [consensus is that we don't need an example.]
    - Kris; this discussion should make it straightforward for Robert or me to make fixes


    5. FW: Increasing confusion around LwDITA versions
        E-mail forwarded by Eberlein, 27 August 2024 https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/fw-increasing-confusion-around-lwdita-versions-1
    - Kris; not sure about all his refs, first may be a repo for a CN
    - Robert; yes, the original 1.0 version
    - Kris; a very outdated repo...
    - Robert; it's the old place where OASIS put unofficial stuff.
    - Kris; makes me wonder how folks even found it.
    - Frank; and he found it as his first hit from Google, and I'd never even seen that directory tree.  Why does it rank so high in Google search?  We should either hide it or remove it.
    - Robert; they won't remove it, it's permanent.
    - Frank; he was wondering about various versions; of the other 2, one is Jarno's version of spec, and other is the latest version of the plug-in. that is a source of confusion. 
    - Kris; so first is DTDs from CN in 2018, second is Jarno's, third is official grammars currently for LwD and there's also a release that may be, what?? 
    - Frank; what we see is what's published inside DITA-OT, all the grammar of DITA-OT, what's been tested with it.  He's mixing up CN/spec and grammar files.
    - Kris; so, what should we do? I can respond and explain first link, and how we can't remove or redirect or anything. Can you respond to other points?
    ***ActionItem: Kris will respond to Adam Retter about why he got a link to the out-of-date material on OASIS site, and how we can't move or hide it.
    ***ActionItem: Frank will respond to Adam on what the other links are, and which links are the best for him to use.
    - Kris; don't know if it's worth talking to OASIS about the problem here.
    - Robert;  don't think it's worth it. answer will be 'finish the spec' so that becomes the latest..'
    - Kris; Frank, what has LwD SC up to? will there ever be a LwD spec published?
    - Frank; last time we met, agreed on distribution of work so we cna get some tasks done, want to have ready by end of Sept, so we can get new version out in Oct
    - Kris; I've been pointing people to our base repo for most recent draft spec; we could put a link for LwD here, and most recent LwD DTDs as well,
    - Robert; if we put links there, Google might raise search priority for them.
    - Kris; last version of LwD spec was in 2022?
    - Frank; so about time...
    - Kris; I think I did one in 2023?
    ***ActionItem: Kris will put in link to latest LwD repo from  the OASIS TC home page.
    - Kris; and Frank, the latest DTDs?
    - Frank; those are what are in the DITA-OT
    - Kris; would rather not point to DITA-OT


    11:45 AM ET close

    .



    ------------------------------
    Nancy Harrison
    Principal, Infobridge Solutions
    Nancy Harrison (Personal)
    Portland OR
    978-505-9189
    ------------------------------

    Attachment(s)

    txt
    minutes20240827.txt   8 KB 1 version