Re: [dita-comment] LwDITA comments

Greetings folks,

In regards to Jang's and Rodolfo's comments, may I also point you to the Commercial Terms provisions of the TC Process at https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process-2017-05-26#commterms

Though this section specifically applies to standards track work ("Therefore, it generally is not acceptable for a TC to include manufacturer lists, service provider lists, or similar material in the text of a Standards Track Work Product (or the equivalent)"), it then goes on to say "Committees may elect to supply or point to provider-neutral lists of known implementation claims, in non-normative statements or their web pages."

Where other TCs have provided info on implementations, they've done it on Wikis where the information can be kept current and where the TC can respond more quickly than the publication cycle to a request for additions or updates. Such an approach also avoids any perception of favor on one set of products over another.

Best,

/chet

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> wrote:

Hello,

Congratulations on the release of the first official draft of Lightweight DITA.

Jang’s comments below, regarding the section on tools, are right. The final version should not have a list of supporting tools.

Including a list of supporting tools in an initial draft doesn’t look good. Is the TC implying that those tools are the officially endorsed ones and nothing else should be used? Is support for the format guaranteed by the TC in future versions of the draft or tool?

Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya rmraya@maxprograms.com
Maxprograms https://www.maxprograms.com

From: Jang [mailto:jang@jang.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 3:31 AM
To: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org; dita-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Fwd: [dita-comment] LwDITA comments

As some of you know, I have been moving away from the whole LwDITA idea, as I believe DITA complexity should be tackled with more sophisticated tools (especially for DITA configuration and constraints), rather than dumbing down the standard. This caused my involvement in the committee and my attention to the discussions of the draft to lapse. This also implies that I have no useful comments about the LwDITA standard(s) as proposed.

However, there is one section in the draft that I am absolutely and vehemently opposed to (and should probably have pointed out earlier): 6. LwDITA Tools.

As this is an official OASIS Committee Note, there should NOT be ANY mention of ANY tools that supposedly support this standard today.

Two reasons:

OASIS should not even give the impression of endorsing any tool, commercial or non-commercial, as this will always give unfair advantage over the tools that are mentioned over the ones that the committee may not (yet) know or care about. OASIS is about the standard, not about the tools that do or do not support that standard.

Another reason is the short lifespan of this section compared to the long lifespan expectancy of the Committee Note itself. Any list of tools that supposedly support the LwDITA standard(s) today is bound to be outdated within a very short time, whereas a Committee Note has a tendency to be reference material with a much longer lifespan (i.e. at least until the LwDITA standard is officially released).

Let’s keep the committee work confined to the standard (as has been the case for anything related to the DITA standard).

Jang F.M. Graat
Smart Information Design
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Cell: +31 646 854 996

/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org

Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393

dita-comment message