Re: SSTC document guidelines

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@east.sun.com>]

At 05:16 PM 2/20/01 -0800, Jeff Hodges wrote:
> > For HTML documents, any chance we can standardize on either .htm or .html,
> > but not both?  It would be annoying for people to guess wrong on the
> > extension, when the rest of the filename is so well structured.
>
>I'm professionally agnostic, I agree we should just pick one and solicit 
>input from others (tho I personally favor ".html" since ".htm" is pretty 
>much just a holdover Windows-ism (if I understand the lineage correctly)).
>
>I just asked Karri Myles, our webmaster, what he thinks -- he's going to be
>doing a fair amount of the work managing the SSTC pages -- and he favors
>".html".

Sounds fine to me.

> > >PDF format is preferred distribution document format. Document
> > >source formats are XML encoded according to the XXX DTD for text,
> > >and Powerpoint source for illustrations (one illustration per
> > >powerpoint slide, one powerpoint file containing multiple slides
> > >per corresponding XML textual source file).
> >
> > Was PDF the agreement of the folks who collaborated on these guidelines?  I
> > thought we were going for HTML.
>
>.html is the desired-by-BobB, "interim", work-product editable format, as
>discussed in these messages..
>
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200101/msg00094.html
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200101/msg00095.html
>
>..and the non-editable, "output format" (or "distribution document" 
>format) is presently agreed upon to be .pdf (see the above two msgs).

I guess what I was commenting on was that the guidelines don't seem to 
fully reflect the current understanding (e.g., mentioning HTML and JPEG).

> > FWIW, here's what W3C documents typically have in the header; these
> > examples are taken from http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml and they're all
> > formally covered in the XMLspec DTD.  I think it would be nice to have at
> > least all those with *:
> >
> > *Title (e.g., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)")
> > Type of document (e.g., "W3C Recommendation")
> > *Date of publication (e.g., "6 October 2000")
> > *Official URI of publication (e.g.,
> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006")
> > Generalized URI of latest version
> > URI for most recent previous version
> > *Authors/editors and contact information
> > Copyright statement
> > *Abstract
> > *Status of This Document
> >
> > This week I will attempt to make a derivative of XMLspec (or simply its
> > stylesheets) that might meet our needs.
>
>Super, that'd be great. Sure, we're open to revising where in the doc 
>metadata oughta be placed.
>
>I think we should include "type of document" in your * list. And, to the 
>extent that it's pretty easy to do (see the end of 
>draft-sstc-doc-guidelines-02.txt; we can provide a .txt and/or .html file 
>template), subcomm and TC drafts SHOULD have the IPR and Copyright notices 
>placed in them.

Oh yeah.  XMLspec has a place to put these in the source, or we could 
generate it in the output.  We could also, BTW, generate HTML that uses the 
OASIS template...

         Eve
--
Eve Maler                                          +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    eve.maler @ east.sun.com