[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Release date
I'm with Paul. I consider that at public review, only "mechanicals" (spelling, punctuation, minor markup refinement) should be found by anyone reviewing--all substantive wording edits including "readability" should already be complete. Markup improvements might change the presentation, but should not alter the discourse, which is what we want the public reviewers to concentrate on. Regards, -- Don Day Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Architect, Lightweight DITA Publishing Solutions Email: dond@us.ibm.com 11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758 Phone: +1 512-244-2868 (home office) "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" --T.S. Eliot From: "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com> To: "dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: 11/14/2009 01:50 PM Subject: RE: [dita] Release date Paul, I think we're in agreement. Do you mean something different from "readability and presentation issues" when you say "editorial nits"? /Bruce From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com] Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:43 AM To: dita Subject: RE: [dita] Release date I'm not sure if there is an OASIS policy on this or not, but I don't think we should issue a spec for public review unless we think it is ready for public review, and that means that we as a TC think it is ready for publication except for truly editorial nits. And the kind of wholesale rewriting and redefining of terminology--to say nothing of the issue of general versus strict task--go way beyond editorial nits. So I would be against issuing the spec for public review until it is really ready for it. And we still have to do our last non-public review first. paul From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, 2009 November 13 15:54 To: dita Subject: [dita] Release date From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 4:27 PM To: Eliot Kimber; Joann Hackos; Michael Priestley Cc: dita; Park Seth-R01164 Subject: RE: [dita] strict task vs. general task vs. the file naming and module rules I'm thinking of starting a betting pool about if DITA 1.2 will be an officially approved OASIS standard before the next major release of Arbortext Editor comes out. The TC and OASIS have roughly 11 months to get this done to win that race. At this point it is not clear which side of this bet I’ll take myself. -Jeff A lot of our time consuming work now is on the spec. Would it speed the process if we plan to make additional spec refinements during and after public review? I don't know the process, but don't we expect that we might have changes come out of public review? Planning for that, couldn't we identify some of the known readability and presentation issues that we would like to make better, and plan to do them in that time frame so that we can concentrate on the accuracy and substance issues before release for public review? /Bruce
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]