OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [chairs] Why the DITA Adoption TC cares about "templates"


Whatever the advantages of OpenOffice over Word, export to PDF isn't one of them. Both perform this function OOTB perfectly well
Cheers,


Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
www.peterfbrown.com
@pensivepeter
+1.310.694.2278
Until 9 January: +32.472.027.811

Sent from my Phone - Apologies for typos, levity and brevity - it's hard to type on a moving planet

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Bosak
Sent: Friday, 24 December, 2010 16:33
To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [chairs] Why the DITA Adoption TC cares about "templates"



> In UBL we have (of course :-)) been providing all of our documents
> as specified in the OASIS process.  Based on our experience, I
> have to say that some of the ways you can do this are a lot
> easier, or give better results, than some of the others.  Ways we
> have tried include:
> 
>   - Authoring in HTML alone.  This works great (we published UBL
>     0.7 and UBL 1.0 this way), but then the OASIS Board decided
>     that HTML wasn't good enough for hypertexts (!) and added the
>     requirement to produce PDF as well.  It has never been
>     satisfactorily explained why this was found to be necessary.
> 
>   - Authoring in Word or OpenOffice (using the templates provided
>     by OASIS) and then creating both PDF and HTML from that.  Using
>     OpenOffice has the advantage of not requiring the purchase of a
>     PDF writer (typically Adobe Acrobat).  This works reasonably
>     well and is the workflow we used for our UBL Guidelines for
>     Customization.  I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it for
>     smallish ad hoc TC work products.
> 
>   - Authoring in DocBook and then generating HTML and PDF from that
>     source using the tools provided by OASIS (which are largely
>     based on the work of the OASIS DocBook TC).  The DocBook is
>     translated by XSLT scripts directly into HTML and also into
>     XSL-FO, from which you can generate rather nice-looking PDF.
>     This works very well and (once you've got everything running
>     correctly) is far and away the best of the three methods when
>     it comes to managing big, complex documents with a lot of
>     internal references like UBL.  We've used this workflow
>     successfully with UBL 2.0, the UBL 2.0 Naming and Design Rules,
>     and UBL 2.1 PRD1.
> 
>     The big problem with this last approach -- aside from the
>     requirement that your authors have to be comfortable working in
>     XML -- is that we don't have good, free XSL-FO formatters set
>     up for OASIS use.  In UBL 2.0 (2006) we threw up our hands and
>     produced the PDF deliverable by importing the generated HTML
>     into something (probably OpenOffice) and then regenerating the
>     PDF from that in order to satisfy OASIS.  The results were not
>     exactly unreadable, but they were so bad that we actually had
>     to insert a notice in the PDF telling people to please ignore
>     it and use the HTML.  In recent years we have been lucky enough
>     to use contributed licenses from a leading maker of FO
>     formatting software, but this is not a strategy that will work
>     for everyone.  What's needed, I think, is a version of
>     something like FOP or (my favorite) xmlroff that can be
>     downloaded along with the rest of the DocBook "template" to
>     create a complete OASIS publishing environment.
> 
> Jon
> 
> Jeff Mischkinsky wrote:
>> 
>> On Dec 23, 2010, at 11:52 AM, JoAnn Hackos wrote:
>> 
>>> Jeff,
>>> The Adoption TC has been developing feature articles, not committee
>>> notes. Our feature articles are only provided in PDF. Thus, HTML is a
>>> new requirements because our feature articles must now be released as
>>> committee notes.
>> 
>> What were they released as before?
>> 
>>  From the (old) TC Process:
>> "Editable formats of all versions of TC documents must be delivered to 
>> the TC’s document repository. TC Working Drafts may be in any format 
>> (i.e. produced by any application). All TC-approved versions of 
>> documents (i.e. Committee Drafts, Public Review Drafts, and Committee 
>> Specifications) must be delivered to the TC’s document repository in the 
>> (1) editable source, (2) HTML or XHTML, and (3) PDF formats; and the TC 
>> must explicitly designate one of those delivered formats as the 
>> authoritative document. Any links published by the TC shall be to the 
>> HTML, XHTML and/or PDF formats stored using repositories and domain 
>> names owned by OASIS and as approved by the TC Administrator."
>> 
>> cheers,
>>  jeff
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>> JoAnn Hackos
>>> Co-Chair DITA Adoption TC
>>>
>>> JoAnn Hackos PhD
>>> President
>>> Comtech Services, Inc.
>>> joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
>>> Skype joannhackos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:11 PM
>>> To: Kristen Eberlein
>>> Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>>> Subject: Re: [chairs] Why the DITA Adoption TC cares about "templates"
>>>
>>> hi kristen,
>>>   one clarification below
>>> On Dec 17, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Kristen Eberlein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Based on off-list e-mails, I thought I should clarify some issues:
>>>>
>>>> *         The DITA Adoption TC authors its white papers in DITA.
>>>> *         The new processes now require us to provide editable
>>>> source, PDF, and XHTML for the white papers.
>>>
>>> I don't believe this is a new requirement. I searched back, and found
>>> the requirement going all the way back to the August 2006 version of
>>> the TC Process (where i stopped searching).
>>> Whether it's been enforced is a different question. ;-)
>>>
>>> For the record:  all the previous versions of the TC Process can be
>>> found on linked from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>   jeff
>>>
>>>> *         We cannot code the necessary transformations for XHTML
>>>> without knowing what the requirements (font, font size, font weight,
>>>> headers, footers, tables, etc.) are.
>>>> *         We want the requirements to be defined and stable:
>>>> o   We want to have a clearly specified set of requirements so that
>>>> we can ensure that our work products meet them.
>>>> o   We do not want to have to redevelop the transformations except
>>>> at specified and set intervals.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Kris
>>>> Co-chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
>>>> Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee
>>>> Kristen James Eberlein l DITA Architect and Technical Specialist l
>>>> SDL Structured Content Technologies Division l (t) + 1 (919)
>>>> 682-2290 lkeberlein@sdl.com
>>>> <image001.jpg>
>>>> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Jeff Mischkinsky
>>> jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
>>> Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware
>>> +1(650)506-1975
>>>     and Web Services Standards                       500
>>> Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
>>> Oracle                                Redwood
>>> Shores, CA 94065
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jeff Mischkinsky                              jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
>> Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware                 +1(650)506-1975
>>     and Web Services Standards                       500 Oracle Parkway, 
>> M/S 2OP9
>> Oracle                                Redwood Shores, CA 94065
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]