FW: [dita] Draft Conformance Clause

["Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>]

Attached is a new draft of conformance information for the DITA 1.2
Specification for discussion during next Tuesday's DITA TC call.  This
draft is based on the initial version that Eliot sent out earlier. The
e-mail below explains a bit about what the new draft tries to do.

   -Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ogden, Jeff
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:46 PM
> To: 'Eliot Kimber'
> Cc: 'Robert D Anderson'; 'Michael Priestley'
> Subject: RE: [dita] Draft Conformance Clause
> 
> Eliot,
> 
> Your initial draft on conformance was a very good start.
> 
> Attached is a revised draft. Take a look and let me know if this draft
> represents progress or a step backward.
> 
> I changed this to be a concept with sections rather than a collection
of
> nested topics, but don't worry about that too much at this stage. Once
we
> get what we want to say sorted out we can convert it to whatever form
> seems most appropriate.
> 
> I tried to make this somewhat shorter, but after adding some
additional
> information it is about the same length.
> 
> I reworded the conformance categories a bit so they could be used with
all
> requirements and not just with processors.
> 
> I added something about the meaning of the keywords REQUIRED, MUST,
> SHALL, ..., and then tried to use those keywords.
> 
> I added something about required and optional features.
> 
> I added something about DITA-aware processors.
> 
> I took a section on high-level feature categories from one of your
earlier
> e-mail messages and added that at the end. I'm not sure if this should
go
> there or in a more detailed appendix.
> 
> I had been thinking that the Conformance Statement would be a chapter
> early in the Architectural spec. accompanied by a more detailed
> requirement summary table in an appendix and carefully worded use of
> conformance terms throughout the Architectural and Language specs.
But as
> I worked on this I started to think that including a very short
> conformance section in an early chapter with most of the conformance
> information included in an appendix might be better. Either way we'll
need
> to sprinkle conformance terminology throughout the specifications. And
we
> may want to have a conformance appendix as part of each of the
> specification documents rather than just in the Architectural Spec.
Just
> thinking out loud here.  Let me know what you think (you too Michael
and
> Robert).
> 
> If this revised draft seems like a step in the right direction, one or
the
> other of us can post it to the DITA TC list so it will be available
for
> discussion during the next DITA TC call two weeks from yesterday.
> 
>    -Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 2:03 PM
> > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [dita] Draft Conformance Clause
> >
> > Per the last meeting minutes:
> >
> > > ACTION: Eliot to mark his email up as a starter chapter for the
> > >             compliance chapter.
> >
> > I have posted the file
> >
> > http://www.oasis-
> >
>
open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/27448/conformance_1_2_wek.
xm
> > l
> >
> > to the TC member's area.
> >
> > This is my first draft of a formal conformance spec. This is marked
up
> > as a generic topic. I have used the note type "informative"
distinguish
> > normative notes from informative notes.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > E.
> > --
> > Eliot Kimber
> > Senior Solutions Architect
> > "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
> > Main: 610.631.6770
> > www.reallysi.com
> > www.rsuitecms.com
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in
> > OASIS
> > at:
> >
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

conformance1.2-jco.dita