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] Release date

I'm with Paul. I consider that at public review, only
"mechanicals" (spelling, punctuation, minor markup refinement) should be
found by anyone reviewing--all substantive wording edits including
"readability" should already be complete. Markup improvements might change
the presentation, but should not alter the discourse, which is what we want
the public reviewers to concentrate on.

Don Day
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Architect, Lightweight DITA Publishing Solutions
Email: dond@us.ibm.com
11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758
Phone: +1 512-244-2868 (home office)

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
 Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
   --T.S. Eliot

  From:       "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com>                                                         
  To:         "dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>                                                                
  Date:       11/14/2009 01:50 PM                                                                               
  Subject:    RE: [dita] Release date                                                                           


I think we're in agreement. Do you mean something different from
"readability and presentation issues" when you say "editorial nits"?


 From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
 Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:43 AM
 To: dita
 Subject: RE: [dita] Release date

 I'm not sure if there is an OASIS policy on this or not, but I don't think
 we should issue a spec for public review unless we think it is ready for
 public review, and that means that we as a TC think it is ready for
 publication except for truly editorial nits.  And the kind of wholesale
 rewriting and redefining of terminology--to say nothing of the issue of
 general versus strict task--go way beyond editorial nits.

 So I would be against issuing the spec for public review until it is
 really ready for it.  And we still have to do our last non-public review


 From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com]
 Sent: Friday, 2009 November 13 15:54
 To: dita
 Subject: [dita] Release date

 From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com]
 Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 4:27 PM
 To: Eliot Kimber; Joann Hackos; Michael Priestley
 Cc: dita; Park Seth-R01164
 Subject: RE: [dita] strict task vs. general task vs. the file naming and
 module rules

 I'm thinking of starting a betting pool about if DITA 1.2 will be an
 officially approved OASIS standard before the next major release of
 Arbortext Editor comes out. The TC and OASIS have roughly 11 months to get
 this done to win that race. At this point it is not clear which side of
 this bet I’ll take myself.


 A lot of our time consuming work now is on the spec. Would it speed the
 process if we plan to make additional spec refinements during and after
 public review? I don't know the process, but don't we expect that we might
 have changes come out of public review?  Planning for that, couldn't we
 identify some of the known readability and presentation issues that we
 would like to make better, and plan to do them in that time frame so that
 we can concentrate on the accuracy and substance issues before release for
 public review?


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