[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [uiml] Schedule of items to be completed before voting ontheCommittee Specification
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 15:50 +0100, Robbie Schaefer wrote: > Hi, > > > More organizational stuff: > > Below my personal opinion. What does the rest of the TC think? > > > - Is there really sufficient difference (or progress) w.r.t. the 3.0 > > specification to have a 4.0 specification? (don't want to start a riot > > here, just to make sure there is a good motivation for doing this). > > I think so, additional to minor changes we introduced three major > modifications > (layout, variables with arithmetic, template parameters) which resulted > in about 10 new elements and has effects on most elements of the > specification. > > > - Can we split up the document, e.g. like the GRDDL specification does > > it: > > => Specification Document (Metamodel, Namespaces, Schema and DTD > > stuff, explanation for each element, mainly suitable for implementers of > > UIML renderers and translators, but also for UIML users to get to know > > the details) > > => Use Case Document (cases that cover the whole specification, with > > examples, suitable for testing UIML renderers and translators but also > > for UIML users) > > => Primer document (introduction document to the technology, links to > > implementation, suitable for UIML users) > > Would be very nice to have, but this would probably delay the completion > of the standard. Actually, I suggested this so we can complete the standard sooner: the specification document contains the actual standard and should be less in volume since the other two documents complement it with additional materials now (extensive examples, implementation details etc.). > >> I have found several small points for improvement/corrections in the > >> document. How should we proceed? > >> Should all the TC-members edit with "track changes" on in parallel and > >> James tries to update the input > >> he gets or should we pass the document as a token sequentially? > > > > Can we do it in the Wiki? > > You did not know the pains I suffered to get the stuff into the Wiki > and the pains James suffered to reconstruct the specification from > the Wiki again ;-) So as much as I usually like collaborating through > a Wiki, in this case I am against it. OK, I was not aware of these difficulties. Regards, Kris -- Kris Luyten Assistant Professor Expertisecentrum voor Digitale Media - Hasselt University Wetenschapspark 2, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium tel.: +32 (0)11 268411 email: kris.luyten@uhasselt.be web: http://research.edm.uhasselt.be/kris
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]