Re: [chairs] What can Standards Development / TC Administration doto help?

[<Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>]

Hi Norm

I think all agree that an automated "pubrules" tool would be very helpful, and your point about a output format is well taken. 

Given the variety of devices there is much value in a format that "re-flows"  (to use e-book terminology) like HTML, as opposed to other formats the presume a certain size display.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia



On May 18, 2010, at 2:01 PM, ext Norman Walsh wrote:

> [Sorry to be coming late to the party, been a busy few weeks. ]
> 
> Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> writes:
>> Agreed. How would the chairs feel about mandating all specs be
>> created in an OASIS XML format?
> 
> That seems to make life more difficult for (some) editors and not much
> different for most readers. I think we'd be more likely to see
> usability gains if we mandated a single, normative output format.
> Specifically, I'd like to see XHTML with mechanically enforcable and
> enforced conventions. A RELAX NG grammar could check some conventions,
> Schematron rules others. At the end of the day, a "publication rules"
> checker might do some ad hoc analysis as well.
> 
> This would make the published specifications uniform and accessible
> which seems like a better win for our readers than a selection of
> formats derived from a smaller set of input sources.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't dream of editing a spec in anything
> *other* than (a particular) OASIS XML format, but that's not going to
> be news to anyone :-)
> 
>                                        Be seeing you,
>                                          norm
> 
> -- 
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Throughout history the world has been
> http://nwalsh.com/            | laid waste to ensure the triumph of
>                              | conceptions that are now as dead as the
>                              | men that died for them.--Henry De
>                              | Montherlant