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] FW: [members] Changes to OASIS TC Process Policy


Sometime ago now we had a discussion about what to do when the DITA spec. called for or allowed for something that could not be implemented or enforced in a DTD, but could be implemented or enforced in an XSD. As I remember it, the decision was that in such a case the language spec. was normative and that the XSD would be considered normative over the DTD or at least the XSD would not be considered as in conflict with the DTD in such cases.

 

First, am I remembering this correctly?

 

Second, if my memory is in fact correct, how does the OASIS rule that the DTDs and XSDs are always normative over the specification?

 

   -Jeff

 

From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:23 PM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] FW: [members] Changes to OASIS TC Process Policy

 

Oh, and a DTD or schema being "normative" in this sense doesn't mean that a conforming implementation must reproduce it verbatim - but only that the specification it conveys through its own language conventions is normative.

 

That is, a DTD or schema written somewhat differently, but that enforces exactly the same element and attribute names, content models, datatypes, etc as the delivered one does, would conform.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dana Spradley
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 9:09 AM
To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] FW: [members] Changes to OASIS TC Process Policy

Hi Bruce--

 

Re: DTDs, schemas, and delivered bugs overriding specified intentions: that makes a lot of sense. So I think we can't really just say the DTD is normative, and the schema isn't, right? Each would be normative in their own way - DTD for DTD implementations, schema for schema ones - and either would prevail over the spec, until we correct the divergence.

 

And thanks for pointing out that the separate numbered conformance clause section isn't new. I guess we should have done this before. And I agree - so long as it covers the same ground, I suppose it doesn't need to reproduce every single clause from the body of the spec.

 

But that probably would be safest...

 

--Dana

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:20 PM
To: Dana Spradley; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] FW: [members] Changes to OASIS TC Process Policy

Dana,

 

You had me confused there for a bit. #3 in Mary's message says:

3. Schemas, XML instances, etc. associated with a specification. The Process now explicitly states that if a discrepancy occurs between the plain text file and the specification document, the definition in the separate file prevails. (See Section 2.18)

Reference is to:

All normative computer language definitions that are part of the specification, such as XML instances, schemas and Java(TM) code, including fragments of such, must be well-formed and valid, and must be provided in separate plain text files. Each text file must be referenced from the specification. Where any definition in these separate files disagrees with the definition found in the specification, the definition in the separate file prevails.

As you say, "the DTD we supply in separate plain-text files [is] normative, and ... override[s] whatever we actually say in the specification itself". But this overriding happens only if we screw up and don't implement what we say we specified. Another way to paraphrase is to say that delivered bugs prevail over specified intentions.

 

The paragraph that you quoted was evidently not changed in this revision. It is:

A specification that is approved by the TC at the Public Review Draft, Committee Specification or OASIS Standard level must include a separate section, listing a set of numbered conformance clauses, to which any implementation of the specification must adhere in order to claim conformance to the specification (or any optional portion thereof).

Since this paragraph is not singled out as a revision in Mary's message, it seems that we were already supposed to have a section that summarizes what "DITA conforming" means. My read is that this doesn't have to be a quotation of each and every normative statement in the spec, so long as the numbered conformance clauses taken together cover the same ground.

/Bruce

 

 


From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:52 PM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] FW: [members] Changes to OASIS TC Process Policy

FYI, Item #3 and the section it refers to seems to have some bearing on conformance issues we've been discussing or commenting on in our edits.

 

In particular, there seems to be a requirement to repeat every single conformance statement that occurs in the spec in a separate section where they can be more easily reviewed ensemble:

A specification that is approved by the TC at the Public Review Draft, Committee Specification or OASIS Standard level must include a separate section, listing a set of numbered conformance clauses, to which any implementation of the specification must adhere in order to claim conformance to the specification (or any optional portion thereof).

Also it appears that we can now consider the DTD we supply in separate plain-text files to be normative, and to override whatever we actually say in the specification itself.

 

OTOH, it seems the same can be said about the schema files - and it's unclear how discrepancies between the two could be handled.

 

--Dana

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:25 PM
To: members@lists.oasis-open.org; tc-announce@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: OASIS TAB; board-plus@lists.oasis-open.org; OASIS Staff
Subject: [members] Changes to OASIS TC Process Policy

On 31 July 2009 the OASIS Board of Directors approved a set of revisions to the TC Process. The effective date of the new Policy is 1 September 2009 and can be seen here: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2009-07-30.php. A change-marked PDF copy is available upon request and will be available on the TC Process Policy web page on or before the effective date.

 

The major changes are as follows:

 

1. Persistent Non-Voting Member. A new role has been defined, allowing a TC Member to declare their non-voting status. The process by which a Member makes such declaration as well as revoking it is established. (See Definitions: x. as well as Section 2.4.3)

 

2. Charter submissions. Charter submissions must now include statements of support from the Primary Representatives of Organizational Members listed as co-proposers. They will also be notified if the Charter submission is amended in any way. (See Section 2.2)

 

3. Schemas, XML instances, etc. associated with a specification. The Process now explicitly states that if a discrepancy occurs between the plain text file and the specification document, the definition in the separate file prevails. (See Section 2.18)

 

In addition, some smaller changes were made in an attempt to clarify some potentially confusing language:

 

4. Explicitly state that all notifications to the OASIS TC Administrator must be sent to tc-admin@oasis-open.org rather than any one individual. (See Definitions: v.)

 

5. Remove language that was inadvertently left in the Process and obsolete (references to Joint Committees and the need to notify the Chair if you have signed up for a new TC but are unable to attend the first meeting).

 

6. Leaves of Absence - proper procedure for submitting requests. (See Section 2.6)

 

7. Standing Rules - allowing for amendments and recisions, as well as explicitly stating that they must be posted on the TC web page in order to be enforceable. (See Section 2.9)

 

8. Clarification with regard to what can and cannot be changed after approval of a Committee Draft, Committee Specification, or OASIS Standard. (See Section 2.18)

 

9. Clarification of the Designated Cross References language. (See Section 2.19)

 

10. Clarification of the Appeals process. (See Section 4.2)

 

 

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

 

Regards,

 

Mary

 

 

Mary P McRae

Director, Standards Development

Technical Committee Administrator

OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society

twitter: fiberartisan  #oasisopen

phone: 1.603.232.9090

 

Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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