Michael,
On 4/26/2010 9:13 AM, Michael Priestley wrote:
OFAE72ACE0.13B0647E-ON85257711.00481FDF-85257711.00489D8D@ca.ibm.com"
type="cite">
Hi Patrick,
I don't know if the situations you
describe
would hit the rules - they are all examples of OASIS setting the tools
direction.
Ah, ok.
OFAE72ACE0.13B0647E-ON85257711.00481FDF-85257711.00489D8D@ca.ibm.com"
type="cite">What I do know is that if
a single TC
tried to do this - setting up the software on their own, storing the
content
on a non-OASIS server, and only copying the source over to the OASIS
source
control - that is not allowed.
Sure, but that isn't because of remote hosting. It is because
access/work isn't being governed by OASIS IPR rules.
OFAE72ACE0.13B0647E-ON85257711.00481FDF-85257711.00489D8D@ca.ibm.com"
type="cite">I've previously had email
conversations
with Mary and others about setting up a solution like this, and the
response
I got was (and I look to Mary for corrections)
- a TC cannot set up its own source
control system
- OASIS will not support a new
system
that is only useful to a few TCs
Sure.
OFAE72ACE0.13B0647E-ON85257711.00481FDF-85257711.00489D8D@ca.ibm.com"
type="cite">For the DITA TC, we'd
love to have a
single system that let us develop the spec, review it internally, and
publish.
We have the technology - and the WYSIWYG editor - what we lack is a
compelling
statement of interest from other TCs.
True and I suspect other TCs (I can think of one in particular, ;-) )
would have other preferences for the basis for the tool chain.
It was mentioned that MS Word has add-ons that handle DITA. Realizing
the differences in enforcement that we discussed earlier, I wonder if
given the simplicity of an OASIS standard format, if it would be
possible to fashion both MS Word and OpenOffice interfaces to an online
system?
Granting that in theory and some practical cases your round tripping
argument is valid, but my question is would those come up in editing
OASIS standards? Assuming the use of templates, restricted sets of
styles, etc.
The reason I suggest MS Word and OpenOffice is that they would cover a
significant percentage of the tools in actual use, assuming that some
provision was made for the use of both IE and FireFox on Windows and
Macs for lesser duties.
Even though I have a Linux box networked into my current display, the
question is accommodating a reasonable majority of users and not all
users. The latter being a very difficult and costly target. If anyone
who is excluded wants to pony up the money to extend the coverage, feel
free. I am sure OASIS would appreciate the funds.
Hope you are at the start of a great week!
Patrick
OFAE72ACE0.13B0647E-ON85257711.00481FDF-85257711.00489D8D@ca.ibm.com"
type="cite">Michael Priestley, Senior
Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Michael,
On 4/23/2010 2:17 PM, Michael Priestley wrote:
I would definitely agree. I'm certainly not proposing a required
approach
- just hoping to see if there is enough interest to justify asking
OASIS
to support this approach at all. A cloud-based or web-hosted approach
is
simply not possible, according to the rules of 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 interested, enough so to justify
OASIS
supporting it.
Sorry, what OASIS rules require OASIS to host the
solution?
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.
Thanks!
Patrick
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
| From:
|
"David RR
Webber \(XML\)"
<david@drrw.info>
|
| To:
|
Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
|
| Cc:
|
chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
|
| Date:
|
04/23/2010 02:02 PM
|
| Subject:
|
RE: [chairs] Practical
considerations
and impacts of mandated editing formats /tools |
Michael,
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 benefits and we don't want to lose that
overnight.
Thanks, DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [chairs] Practical considerations and impacts of mandated
editing formats /tools
From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, April 22, 2010 5:49 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
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
install
custom tooling, non-default plugins, etc. Go with a hosted solution
instead.
For example, we're using a DITA-based wiki within IBM to enable
developers
and other content contributors to create DITA content without
installing
a full XML toolchain. There is some training, but I don't think
substantially
more than there would be with a new Word template or other non-XML
solution,
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
underneath
doesn't care :-)
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
My experience with this in the past is that this imposes an
unacceptable
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
control.
What one person sees in their environment is not what someone else
has.
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
editor
and documents and providing support to your deadlines. Or working
with a TC member who is likewise being challenged sending in edits.
Training
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
with
using for developing their specifications. If something is suggested
and provided to assist - that's fine - but that's not the same as
mandating
something.
DW
--
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)
--
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)
|