[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [chairs] What can Standards Development / TC Administration do to help?
I just note also that the TC Admin review has not always been completely accurate and thorough, simply because the reviewers are human. Another point with the human review is that it needs to be scheduled and there might be variable response time. The TC is almost always a bit grumpy after an issue is found, besides after the fix is installed a subsequent review may find additional issues. thanks -bob On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Frederick Hirsch wrote: > One aspect that is broken is requiring Staff to meticulously review publication submissions for corrections, where this could be automated. I don't have the details, but believe it includes conformance to templates, style, required sections etc. This is where this discussion started. Maybe Mary or others have the details of what time consuming checking is currently required. > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Nokia > > > > On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:07 PM, ext Peter F Brown (Pensive) wrote: > >> Could someone clearly sum up what is broken and requires fixing? >> >> The initial post included a range of ideas from staff to improve TC work. We are now discussing the (de-)merits of an XML editing suite. >> >> Peter >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] >> Sent: Fri, 23 April 2010 08:54 >> To: Frederick Hirsch >> Cc: ext Mike Edwards; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org; Mary McRae >> Subject: Re: [chairs] What can Standards Development / TC Administration do to help? >> >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Frederick Hirsch wrote: >> >>> Example: >>> >>> An example of how new tools can evolve is the new emerging use of ReSpec in >>> W3C, not mandated by the organization. This is HTML 5 with special markup >>> that is processed within the browser by Javascript to create all the markup, >>> boilerplate etc automatically, including shared bibliographic references and >>> formatting. Makes editors life much easier, while also enabling conformance >>> to organizational publication rules and style. (Previous efforts to >>> hand-craft HTML or use XML in a build environment were not very editor >>> friendly) >>> >>> No makefile, no build, no special tools other than support for Javascript in >>> the Browser and the use of HTML 5. >>> >>> I'm not saying this is the tool for OASIS, but an example of grass-roots >>> adoption of a tool to ease editing and publication to solve this sort of >>> problem (thanks to Robin Berjon for creating it). I understand a v2 is in the >>> works. >>> >>> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html >>> >>> regards, Frederick >>> >>> Frederick Hirsch >>> Nokia >> >> Thanks, Frederick. Indeed, W3C has an extensive set of tools (and a couple different >> tool chains) to assist spec authors/editors in writing specifications, >> automatically including correct citations and references (using a citation- >> picker that addresses a bibliographic database), etc. I think it's relatively >> easier to create tools for documents that use descriptive markup than >> for word-processor files. Well... easier for most people. >> >> Anish Karmarkar [Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] notes the benefits >> of using the W3C environment, but mentioned that use of the >> XML Spec tool chain can require (or did, at one time) a bit of >> a learning process: >> >> The biggest issue that I found in w3c (this was a few years >> ago and things may be better now), in working in XML and >> using XSLTs to generate HTML was that the diff-ing of the >> output (HTML) was woefully inadequate. So when an editor >> made large scale changes, it was hard for the WG members to >> figure out exactly what changes were made by looking at the >> HTML. >> >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/201004/msg00053.html >> >> But in recent times, the W3C Staff have provided additional tools >> for generating colored diffs, and these are regularly published >> as non-normative format: >> >> http://xml.coverpages.org/specProduction.html#w3c-html-diff >> >> More broadly speaking: both W3C and IETF have built up considerable >> resources for using structured information standards (e.g., XML, XSLT, >> CSS, XHTML) in the authoring, QA checking, and publication process. >> It's a chicken-and-egg problem, though: nobody wants to support >> the development of tools they believe might be too difficult to use. >> Some 18,000 people in IETF use the IETF tools without (? much) >> complaint, and that includes several key XML tools. Naturally, >> someone can point out that IETF people and specs are different.... >> >> Everyone is probably familiar with the W3C Validiation Tools, >> including the Link Checker, which I strongly recommend for use >> by OASIS TCs where the editors do not have local-computer tools: >> >> http://validator.w3.org/checklink >> >> For a survey (not up-to-date) of W3C and IETF tool chains based >> upon standards, please see: >> >> http://xml.coverpages.org/specProduction.html#w3c >> http://xml.coverpages.org/specProduction.html#ietf >> >> If we set some goals (viz., requirements), we might be able to >> conscript more OASIS members who have coding talent to help >> improve the OASIS spec-production tools. I note for example, >> that one member of an OASIS TC maintains a tool for XSLT >> transformation of concert RFC 2629-compliant XML (see [RFC2629]) >> to various output formats, such as HTML, PDF, CHM. >> >> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html >> >> Finally: some of the desiderata mentioned in this 2010-04 thread have >> been incorporated (months ago) into the formal requirements for >> an OASIS document management system -- while languishing in >> the execution, this system should provide a range of workflow >> and automation tools for support of specification authoring, >> editing, reviewing, QA checking, and publication (viz., through >> the entire specification lifecycle). Send email if you would >> like to become involved in that design and development >> activity. >> >> - Robin >> >> Robin Cover >> OASIS, Director of Information Services >> Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink >> Email: robin@oasis-open.org >> Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover >> Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ >> Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html >> Tel: +1 972-296-1783 >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:10 AM, ext Mike Edwards wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> If an XML publication format is proposed, what are the tools that you >>>> expect the folks >>>> developing the specs to use? >>>> >>>> There is no point in automating the back end of the process if we make the >>>> front end of >>>> the process slower. >>>> >>>> Yours, Mike. >>>> >>>> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO. >>>> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC. >>>> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain. >>>> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431 >>>> Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com> >>>> To: >>>> Dave Ings <ings@ca.ibm.com> >>>> Cc: >>>> Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>, "chairs@lists.oasis-open.org" >>>> <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>> Date: >>>> 22/04/2010 17:41 >>>> Subject: >>>> Re: [chairs] What can Standards Development / TC Administration do to help? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >>>> 741598. >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]