Hi Don,
Actually, we were talking about neither. Bob Freund raised the point that if we were using a structured vocabulary we would be able to build some automated processes that would be able to do much of the checking that's now done manually. A specific XML vocabulary would need to be in place to facilitate such checking (such as the TC Name being identified as the TCName rather than H4).
Mary
On Apr 22, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Don Day wrote:
Michael has hit it correctly that OASIS already has source formats and
existing styles for outputting to a common look and feel.
But are we talking about common output format, or common ways to
participate in review? Either way, teams can select the OASIS authoring
format of choice for updates, since the taking and disposition of
review comments does not necessarily have to happen in the literal
source (nor would such widely open source access during review be
advisable).
--
Don Day,
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Michael Priestley wrote:
OF535522B3.CB6F176F-ON8525770D.006BC778-8525770D.006C649F@ca.ibm.com" type="cite">
Patrick wrote:
>Those are output formats. Why would we limit users
to just one?
None of those are output formats.
And
authoring in any one of them is mutually exclusive with the others. You
can only have one source format.
OpenOffice editors may be capable of
reading ODF into memory, and then outputting to other models - but that
is not the same as authoring in that model. For example ODF allows
formatting
instructions in source that deliberately have no equivalent in DocBook
or DITA. And both DITA and DocBook have semantic and structural
requirements
that cannot be enforced in a general-purpose word processor.
If we created equivalent stylesheets
for DocBook and DITA, we should be able to get a common look and feel
from
those two different source formats. To accomplish the same end in ODF
would
require a different approach, I believe, using authoring templates and
guidelines rather than schema rules and stylesheets.
I think it would be wonderful if
OASIS
allowed authoring of its specifications in any of its standardized
document
formats. Then TCs can make their own choice of source format based on
the
capabilities they require, and produce a common look and feel that
still
supports the needs of the OASIS brand.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Bryan,
On 4/22/2010 1:17 PM, bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com
wrote:
Yes! I'd love it. But I
can
already begin to see the battle lines being drawn, i.e., which one
(DITA,
Docbook, OpenDocument, . . .)?
Those are output formats. Why would we limit users
to just
one?
Even though as the ODF editor I would prefer that everyone output to
ODF,
I can understand why others feel equally strongly for their output
formats.
The real fight would be over a uniform format. The underlying
representation
that is output is a detail. An important one but still just a detail.
Personally I would welcome an activity to declare meaningful rules for
formatting OASIS standards, provided those rules were enforced.
If nothing else, it would make the main work product of our committees
have some appearance of issuing from the same organization (other than
the cover pages).
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:58 AM
To: Bob Freund
Cc: Dave Ings; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [chairs] What can Standards Development / TC
Administration
do to help?
Agreed. How would the chairs feel about mandating all
specs be created in an OASIS XML format?
m
On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:40 PM,
Bob
Freund wrote:
How much of this review might
be
automated?
might be a lot if we had an xml
publication format.
On Apr 22, 2010, at 9:24 AM,
Dave
Ings wrote:
+1
This would really cut down on the iterative churn that seems to
frustrate
the people involved in the publication process. Great idea!
Regards, Dave Ings,
Emerging Software Standards
Email: ings@ca.ibm.com
Yahoo Messenger: dave_ings
<graycol.gif>Hanssens
Bart ---2010/04/22 09:02:30 AM---> Would you like us to review your
specifications prior to TC ballots so you don't need to go back a
From: Hanssens Bart <Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be>
To: Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>,
"chairs@lists.oasis-open.org"
<chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 2010/04/22 09:02 AM
Subject: RE: [chairs]
What can
Standards Development / TC Administration do to help?
> Would you like us to review your specifications prior to TC
ballots
so you don't need to go back and fix stuff afterwards?
That would be very helpful indeed, especially for new TC's / people
submitting
specifications for the first time...
Best regards
Bart
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
|