OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [dita] DITA 1.2 conformance section


Here’s what I think we should try to do and not try to do for the conformance spec:

 

1) Do not try to decide what features are required. That is what would take months for us to decide.

2) Do remove statements that only make sense if there is a list of required features. E.g. “Implementations that include some DITA features, but not others, are considered conforming as long as all required features for the category of implementation are included and all of the features that are included follow the requirements given in the DITA Specification.”

3) Do not try to fix the definitions of terms given in the "Processors and processor type categories" section.

4) Do remove the "Processors and processor type categories" section, as the terms it defines do not seem to be systematically used elsewhere.

5) Most importantly: Do decide what the most important messages are that we want to communicate about conformance, and make sure that the spec communicates those things clearly.

 

Right now the topic fulfills the requirement of “having a conformance topic” but I honestly can’t say it’s better than having no conformance topic at all. I have no idea what most of it means.

 

If what we have to say about conformance is very little, let’s figure out what that very little thing is and try to say only that.

 

Su-Laine

 

Su-Laine Yeo
Solutions Consultant

JustSystems Canada, Inc.
Office: 778-327-6356
syeo@justsystems.com

www.justsystems.com

XMetaL Community Forums: http://forums.xmetal.com/

 

 

 

From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:08 AM
To: Ogden, Jeff; DITA TC
Subject: RE: [dita] DITA 1.2 conformance section

 

This is consistent with our discussion (on the call) of incremental improvement wrt conformance. I don't remember hearing any dissent.

 


From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:42 PM
To: DITA TC
Subject: [dita] DITA 1.2 conformance section

I’m the last person to touch the “Conformance” section, so I think I need to try and address the comments on that section from the 3rd review.

 

In looking over the section I see many comments that I am in sympathy with, but which I do not know how to address.  I think the problem is that the DITA TC didn’t do the work needed throughout the entire specification that would allow us to write a clear and unambiguous conformance statement.  And because doing that work would take quite a bit of effort and time that would delay the release of DITA 1.2 by several more months, we aren’t planning to do that work until DITA 1.3 or perhaps DITA 1.2.1.  And I think this means reworking the draft conformance section to address the comments that we can, but also leaving many of the comments unaddressed for now.

 

While the conformance terminology used in the DITA 1.2 spec. is far from perfect, I do think that it is much better than what we had in DITA 1.0 and 1.1 where there was essentially no conformance statement.  And we’ve made some progress in terms if using the must/should/may terminology more consistently throughout the spec., although there is much more work that should be done.

 

I’m looking for guidance from the DITA TC before I start to address specific comments from the review.  Is what I outlined above OK?  Is it OK to leave many of the comments unaddressed for DITA 1.2? Does anyone have other specific suggestions about how to address these issues?

 

To see the 3rd review comments on the Conformance section, see:

 

  http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Conformance3

 

   -Jeff



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]