[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] some comemnts on the Draft DITA 1.2 architecture spec.
On 7/6/09 12:06 PM, "Dana Spradley" <dana.spradley@oracle.com> wrote: > I'm inclined to agree Eliot. > > Systematically written conformance clauses that distinguish between the levels > of conformance required by various conformance targets, and that assign > REQUIRED keywords to normative statements that support those features that are > most likely to be used by installations, and OPTIONAL keywords to normative > statements that support features that are least likely to be used, would go a > long way toward making DITA a more precise and flexible standard than our > current conformance language does. > > But we don't want this exercise to get out of hand and seriously delay > delivery of 1.2, do we? There has to be a non-facile conformance clause. If creating that causes delay, it causes delay. Without such a clause there is no standard. It has to say clearly, directly or indirectly, what features and behaviors are mandatory and what are not. If we can't say that, as a TC, we are not done. Cheers, E. ---- Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc. email: ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403 www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]