RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 12 December 2006

["Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gershon L Joseph [mailto:gershon@tech-tav.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2006 December 12 12:10
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 12 
> December 2006

Regarding:

   4.  ITEM: ditaval should not be normative in 1.1
        * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200612/msg00019.html

	. . . .

            Paul G: I have reviewed the existing ditaval description 
            and Arbortext's official position is to object to it.


Not to split hairs, but the term "object to" usually has
specific meaning in standards development, especially
when said in the same sentence as the words "official
position"--it implies a request to record an official
objection by the member.

I hope I made it clear that this was not case here.

Arbortext still believes the ditaval discussion does
not belong as a normative part of the DITA 1.1 spec,
but we do not wish to register an official objection.  
We prefer to see the DITA 1.1 spec progress, and we
are willing to have the chair declare working consensus
on this point (as he did) and close the issue (as we did).  

(Consensus does not have to mean everyone agrees; it means 
there was enough agreement among the participants to favor
the proposed solution and no one felt strongly enough to 
register an official objection.)

Sorry to be pedantic, but I've been doing standards for
too long, and I don't want the record to show that Arbortext 
registered an official objection here.

paul