On 4/23/2010 2:17 PM, Michael Priestley wrote:
Sorry, what OASIS rules require OASIS to host the solution?
I would definitely agree. I'm
not proposing a required approach - just hoping to see if there is
interest to justify asking OASIS to support this approach at all. A
or web-hosted approach is simply not possible, according to the rules
OASIS, without OASIS providing the hosting. So although I'd love
to be doing this today with DITA, we can't unless more teams are also
enough so to justify OASIS supporting it.
Do you mean if OASIS leased a server at a remote hosting facility and
the server was maintained and serviced by the hosting facility that
would be a violation of OASIS rules? What if the software was
maintained at the direction of OASIS?
If that is the rule then it needs to be changed.
A pointer to the rule that is the problem would be appreciated.
type="cite">Michael Priestley, Senior
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
||"David RR Webber \(XML\)"
||04/23/2010 02:02 PM
||RE: [chairs] Practical
and impacts of mandated editing formats /tools
In principle I like the idea of hosting
solution. The world is going cloud based collaboration tools.
But as Jacques noted - this should be a
gradual transition where that value proposition sells itself - because
obviously todays desktop environment has significant strengths and
and we don't want to lose that overnight.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [chairs] Practical considerations and impacts of mandated
editing formats /tools
From: Michael Priestley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, April 22, 2010 5:49 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <email@example.com>
I don't disagree with your conclusion - I agree with empowering TCs to
choose their own tools. I will add a wrinkle to your argument, however:
in the case of XML authoring, there is an alternative to having to
custom tooling, non-default plugins, etc. Go with a hosted solution
For example, we're using a DITA-based wiki within IBM to enable
and other content contributors to create DITA content without
a full XML toolchain. There is some training, but I don't think
more than there would be with a new Word template or other non-XML
and with even less technical overhead.
So the subject matter experts and occasional authors use a no-install,
fast-learning-curve tool, and the power users can install a full tools
chain with more power, complexity, and learning curve. The XML
doesn't care :-)
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
My experience with this in the past is that this imposes an
barrier to the volunteers who do the hard work of actually editing and
completing the specifications.
Once you start needing to install add-ins and scripts and all kinds of
non-default pieces into editing tools things rapidly get out of
What one person sees in their environment is not what someone else
I always hear "well it works wonderfully for our TC" - but then
those same people are not the ones responsible for fixing your PC and
and documents and providing support to your deadlines. Or working
with a TC member who is likewise being challenged sending in edits.
is another issue.
I'd strongly prefer to not open this whole can of worms - and allow TCs
to continue tp decide - as now - what tools they are most comfortable
using for developing their specifications. If something is suggested
and provided to assist - that's fine - but that's not the same as
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)