Release management proposal: new version

Hello,

Attached are the files for the new version of the RM stage proposal. Special thanks are due to Eliot Kimber for working on the DTD specification; his work is included in the new version.

Needless to say, I need your comments ASAP. I would like to submit the proposal by the end of the week. Please look also at the PDF to see if there are any presentation issues that may need to be corrected.

There are some changes to the model:

· Foremost, @changeID was removed. Eliot pointed out that it could only be added if <change-item> is a new base element, so we’ll have to do without it.

· Some elements were renamed. (For example, many now start with the string ‘change-‘ to avoid conflicts with bookchangehistory; others were renamed to add consistency.) However, the structure is largely unchanged. Please look at the element names to be sure I have made all the updates in the examples and any other listings.

· The content model of the date/time elements was changed to #PCDATA. This eliminated six new elements. Here’s what Eliot said when he made this change:

“I omitted the subelements of <change-started> and <change-completed> pending more discussion on how best to capture these dates. I don't think having RM-specific detail elements is the right solution--if having that level of precisions for date markup is appropriate then we should really provide it as a standalone domain. I've asked on the TC list if anyone remembers past discussions.”

“I think either using an ISO date value or just a reasonable date string is the best solution. There is lots of code around that can interpret most ways of writing down dates and times, and as I said, if a computer is setting the value, then an ISO date is as good as anything. If you're using a form to set the date, again, the form control will likely produce an ISO date string anyway.”

· The elements personinfo and organizationinfo were incorporated from the xnal domain. So that’s two less elements.

At Eliot’s suggestion, I also removed most of the boilerplate instructions carried forward from the template, which he thinks may have led readers to assume the proposal was less complete that it really was.

I have one remaining question: The template asks if the new elements are translatable and, if so, whether they are block or phrase elements. I simply state that the elements are translatable. If this is not sufficient, I believe these are all block elements. Is this correct?

Thank you.

with best regards

Tom Cihak

NMG Information Development

Freescale

512.996.5072

dita-techcomm message