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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

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

Subject: Re: [dita] Reapproving approved proposals

Given that each feature has been approved by a majority vote of the TC, should it require a majority vote of the TC to re-open? Otherwise the original vote has no meaning.

I think it's important that this particular design revisit is managed quickly and without it becoming a precedent that tosses out our existing investment in process. If the subteam can't come to an agreement by Tuesday's meeting I think it should go to a vote as to whether the design should be opened at all. I do think Paul has legitimate concerns, but I also think this shouldn't open the door to revisit every compromise we've managed to achieve in the last year.

We are missing committed dates with teams that have invested considerable development team in a design they thought was stable. Our credibility with our development community is on the line.

Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead

Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>

08/09/2006 12:25 PM

Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>
JoAnn Hackos <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>, Chris Wong <cwong@idiominc.com>, dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [dita] Reapproving approved proposals

Actually, on second thought, and as a matter of principle, I don't know - when it comes to approving a design, maybe we should be able to resurrect old objections if the final design doesn't satisfy and instead  begs all these old questions over again.

Nothing's in the standard until the design is approved - and even then, at some later date we could all decide we did something wrong, and deprecate the solution until it can be eliminated from the standard.


Dana Spradley wrote:

I agree. If opposing this innovation had been important to me, I should have done so before we approved the proposal.

On the other hand, I would like to question Chris's notion that since topics appear in the table of contents, they shouldn't appear in the index.

The index provides an alternative, alphabetical method for looking up topics of interest - instead of going over the TOC with a fine tooth comb to find what you're interested in.

And I think that may turn out to be how many authors end up using the index range feature - to index entire topics.

Should the implemention give them some easy method to accomplish that - by inserting one element instead of two?


JoAnn Hackos wrote:

Hi Chris et al.
We're just speculating about the concept of page range. I'm sure we all continue to agree that page ranges are appropriate for the model. I was part of the earlier debate, as you know.
Let's concentrate on the mechanism. However, it is still a good idea to advocate best practices in white papers on the indexing issue, just as we have tried to do with the Translation SC's best practice on indexing. You don't have to do it this way, but it might help.
Let's all focus on the mechanism at this point.

JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
Comtech Services, Inc.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver CO 80215




From: Chris Wong [mailto:cwong@idiominc.com]
Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:37 AM
[dita] Reapproving approved proposals

This is more of a procedural question here, touched off by our reopening the indexterm debate. Months ago, we spent weeks debating, compromising and writing up proposals, DTDs and language reference material for indexing enhancements. We voted twice to approve this. But now the whole thing is reopened for debate and it looks like everything is up for grabs again.
What does it mean to approve something, if it can come apart at any time?

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