I think we're saying the same thing, Michael, in
different ways: let's bring this to a vote, and if the design fails to
earn a majority, let's drop it and move on.|
I don't want to revisit the issue already compromised on - but just
recall it, to remind the TC that some of us never considered this a
very important enhancement anyway.
Michael Priestley wrote:
Given that each feature has been
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
design revisit is managed quickly and without it becoming a precedent
tosses out our existing investment in process. If the subteam can't
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
concerns, but I also think this shouldn't open the door to revisit
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
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
Actually, on second thought, and as a
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
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
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
On the other hand, I would like to question Chris's notion that since
appear in the table of contents, they shouldn't appear in the index.
The index provides an alternative, alphabetical method for looking up
of interest - instead of going over the TOC with a fine tooth comb to
what you're interested in.
And I think that may turn out to be how many authors end up using the
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
concept of page range. I'm sure we all continue to agree that page
are appropriate for the model. I was part of the earlier debate, as you
Let's concentrate on the
However, it is still a good idea to advocate best practices in white
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
Let's all focus on the
at this point.
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
Comtech Services, Inc.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver CO 80215
From: Chris Wong [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:37 AM
Subject: [dita] Reapproving approved proposals
This is more of a procedural question
touched off by our reopening the indexterm debate. Months ago, we spent
weeks debating, compromising and writing up proposals, DTDs and
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?