DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 17 May 2006

/ "Bob Stayton" <bobssagehill.net> was heard
to say:
| DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 17 May 2006
|
============================================================
=

The DocBook Technical Committee met on Wednesday, 17 May
2006 at
05:00p EDT (02:00p PDT, 21:00GMT, 22:00BST, 23:00CEST,
06:00JST+,
02:30a India+) for 90 minutes.

| Agenda

Scribe: Norm

| 1. Roll call

Present:

Steven Cogorno
Gary Cornelius
Scott Hudson
Larry Rowland
Paul Grosso
Richard Hamilton
Nancy Harrison [xx:34-]
Jirka Kosek
Norman Walsh
Gershon Joseph

Regrets:

Robert Stayton

Absent:

Adam Di Carlo
Mark Johnson
Alex Povzner

| 2. Accepting the minutes[1] of the previous meeting.

Accepted.

| 3. Next meeting: 21 June 2006

Proposed: 28 June 2006

Regrets: Dick

Accepted.

| 4. Review of the agenda.

Accepted with the addition of 5b.

| 5. Review of open action items
|
|    a.  Mark, Nancy, and Norm will consult their legal
resources
|        regarding OASIS IPR policy choice.

Completed.

|    b.  Norm and Bob to review and close any RFEs that
should be closed.

Continue.

|    c.  Norm to add these RNG customization guidelines to
the reference
| guide.
|
|    d.  Dick to add RNG customization guidelines to the
HowTo document.

Completed.

|    e.  Jirka to investigate whether modifier needs to be
added to any
|        content models (for synopsis annotations).

Completed.

|    f.  Jirka to investigate whether modifier needs a class
attribute.

Completed.

|    g.  Norm to add person and org elements to V5 Beta 6.

Continued.

5b. DocBook/ODF/DITA interop story

There's a mailing list for this. And Dee sent a summary of
the interop
scenarios being discussed.

ODF? DITA/DocBook interop story is sort of obvious. The ODF
angle
seems quite different.

Propose we invite Dee to attend next month for further
discussion.

Accepted.

| 6.  DocBook 4.5 standards progress.

Norm thought it would go out for a vote this month.

Norm will follow-up with Mary to see what happened.

We'll figure out campaigning strategies for getting votes
after the
call goes out.

| 7.  DocBook 5 issues.

Norm introduces the issue of foreignphrase in bibliomixed
(it's not
allowed and should be).

Proposal: allow db.publishing.inlines in bibliography
entries.

Accepted.

Jirka introduces the idea of a persistent URI for the latest
DocBook
schema.

Pro: Documents like the HOWTO can refer to it.

Con: Using it for validation could be odd
     Users could get confused

Maybe what we need is a page that lists the latest version,
introducing a layer of indirection. Jirka wants direct links
to the
schema documents directly.

Consensus is that problems with a "latest
schema" link outweight the
benefits.

Proposal: let's not.

Accepted.

When do we move 5.0 to CR?

Norm suggests that we wait until voting on 4.5 is finished.

Jirka worries that we won't get adoption until we get it
out
officially.

Norm suggests that announcing CR1 at XML conference might be
a good
idea.

Some agreement. We'll continue testing and see if we can
continue to
feel confident about that date.

| 8.  Resolve ourselves against the new OASIS IPR policy.
|    See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/2006
02/msg00038.html
|    Continued from previous meeting.

There are three IPR modes:

- RAND
- RF on RAND
- RF on Limited Terms

Norm summarizes the state of play and suggests that RF on
Limited
Terms is our best option. RAND didn't win any support.

No one objects to RF on Limited Terms as a proposal.

We must adopt the new terms by April 2007.

The open question is, are we comfortable with RF on Limited
Terms?

Nancy suggests that it isn't ideal, it isn't as open as we
might like,
but it's much better than ending the TC (our only other
choice).

Can we restrict the license in future releases? Not for
earlier
releases of course, but probably for a new release.

We believe DITA is going with RF on Limited Terms (but they
haven't
voted yet.)

Proposal: We'll plan to advance with RF on Limited Terms
eventually,
but we won't start the paperwork right away. We'll give
folks time to
consider how confortable they are with RF on Limited Terms.

Accepted.

ACTION: Nancy/Norm to find out if making the license more
restricted
is going to cause any heartburn.

| 9. Proposal for annotations on synopsis elements [2]
|    Continued from previous meeting.

Jirka summarizes his mail:

  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook
-tc/200605/msg00009.html

Proposal: change content model of methodparam as proposed
and allow
xml:space on modifier.

Accepted.

| 10. Review of Requests for Enhancement
|
|    To browse a specific RFE, enter the URL (on one line):
|
|      http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&a
mp;;
|      group_id=21935&atid=384107&aid=XXXX
|
|      1473273  person/org in author, editor, etc?

Now that we've added person, author looks a lot like
person. Should
we put person inside author?

Norm points out the drawbacks: it's backwards incompatible
and it adds
an extra wrapper that doesn't add any value.

|      1473274  add mediaobject to person and org

Scott outlines the use case, but observes that he's really
talking
about extensions, not core hardware and software use cases.

Norm ponders the use of annotations.

Gershon isn't convinced; it's an infrequent need and not
really the
typical use case for hardware and software documentation.

Norm suggests that Scott give it a try with annotations.

Proposal: Reject for now, Scott will bring it back if it
comes up in
hardware and software documentation as a significant issue.

Accepted.

|      1478012  Add linumsep and linenumstep to
programlisting and screen

Norm reminds the group about list number continuations in
ordered lists
and the attribute for selecting proportional or monospaced
fonts.

Gershon suggests that it's a stylesheet issue.

Jirka proposes that the stlyesheets could handle even the
difficult
cases of numbering changes for very short listings.

General agreement that the separator is a bad idea in an
attribute.

But starting and increment are possibly reasonable.

Norm worries about continuations and about starting item
numbers in
orderedlists.

Gershon points out that users can add custom attributes if
they need
it.

Norm worries about doing this without a comprehensive
proposal. We
need to consider all the places where we have (or might
have)
automatically generated numbers and try to treat them all
the same.

ACTION: Norm to write a more comprehensive proposal for
numbering changes.

Any other business?

Jirka asks if anyone else is going to WWW 2006? Not anyone
else on the
call.

Anyone going to Extreme? Norm and Larry...

Adjourned.

| - ---
|
| [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook
-tc/200604/msg00024.html
| [2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook
-tc/200602/msg00023.html

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndwnwalsh.com>      | Everything should be
made as
http://www.oasis-o
pen.org/docbook/ | simple as possible, but no simpler.
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh a écrit :

[...]

> | 8.  Resolve ourselves against the new OASIS IPR
policy.
> |    See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/2006
02/msg00038.html
> |    Continued from previous meeting.
> 
> There are three IPR modes:
> 
> - RAND
> - RF on RAND
> - RF on Limited Terms
> 
> Norm summarizes the state of play and suggests that RF
on Limited
> Terms is our best option. RAND didn't win any support.
> 
> No one objects to RF on Limited Terms as a proposal.
> 
> We must adopt the new terms by April 2007.
> 
> The open question is, are we comfortable with RF on
Limited Terms?
> 
> Nancy suggests that it isn't ideal, it isn't as open
as we might like,
> but it's much better than ending the TC (our only
other choice).

Why is it so bad to end the TC? (or more precisely to leave
OASIS as I
understand it)

Also, I might have misinterpreted the terms of the various
IPR modes,
could someone explain us, foreigners that haven't got a
Harvard degree,
 in clear terms, what those modes mean for users? (perhaps
mainly the RF
on Limited Terms)

Thanks,

Camille.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


iD8DBQFEbXU8jv9P65BfOUMRApVAAJoCDCKgI4g48gjKp22ei+4bIMEd4wCe
PY+C
kkaIpEo1bdl5nRPV8ySbPeo=
=JO2x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribelists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-helplists.oasis-open.org

Camille B�«±gnis <camilleneodoc.biz> writes:

> Norman Walsh a �«±crit :
> 
> [...]
> 
> > | 8.  Resolve ourselves against the new OASIS IPR
policy.
> > |    See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/2006
02/msg00038.html
> > |    Continued from previous meeting.
> > 
> > There are three IPR modes:
> > 
> > - RAND
> > - RF on RAND
> > - RF on Limited Terms
> > 
> > Norm summarizes the state of play and suggests
that RF on Limited
> > Terms is our best option. RAND didn't win any
support.
> > 
> > No one objects to RF on Limited Terms as a
proposal.
> > 
> > We must adopt the new terms by April 2007.
> > 
> > The open question is, are we comfortable with RF
on Limited Terms?
> > 
> > Nancy suggests that it isn't ideal, it isn't as
open as we might like,
> > but it's much better than ending the TC (our only
other choice).
> 
> Why is it so bad to end the TC? (or more precisely to
leave OASIS as I
> understand it)

FWIW, I'd also like to suggest that there is always the
option of
ending DocBook's association with OASIS and creating a new,
independently chartered, standalone group to maintain it. Or
moving it to another standards body (though I can't say I
know
what the value is -- given that DocBook is already mature
and
widely accepted -- for maintaining DocBook under the
umbrella of
any of the big standards organizations at all).

  --Mike