Re: [dita] some comemnts on the Draft DITA 1.2 architecture spec.

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>]

On 7/6/09 12:06 PM, "Dana Spradley" <dana.spradley@oracle.com> wrote:

> I'm inclined to agree Eliot.
> 
> Systematically written conformance clauses that distinguish between the levels
> of conformance required by various conformance targets, and that assign
> REQUIRED keywords to normative statements that support those features that are
> most likely to be used by installations, and OPTIONAL keywords to normative
> statements that support features that are least likely to be used, would go a
> long way toward making DITA a more precise and flexible standard than our
> current conformance language does.
> 
> But we don't want this exercise to get out of hand and seriously delay
> delivery of 1.2, do we?

There has to be a non-facile conformance clause. If creating that causes
delay, it causes delay. Without such a clause there is no standard. It has
to say clearly, directly or indirectly, what features and behaviors are
mandatory and what are not. If we can't say that, as a TC, we are not done.

Cheers,

E.
----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email:  ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>