[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DITA 1.2 conformance section
I’m the last person to touch the “Conformance”
section, so I think I need to try and address the comments on that section from
the 3rd review. In looking over the section I see many comments that I am in
sympathy with, but which I do not know how to address. I think the
problem is that the DITA TC didn’t do the work needed throughout the
entire specification that would allow us to write a clear and unambiguous
conformance statement. And because doing that work would take quite a bit
of effort and time that would delay the release of DITA 1.2 by several more
months, we aren’t planning to do that work until DITA 1.3 or perhaps DITA
1.2.1. And I think this means reworking the draft conformance section to
address the comments that we can, but also leaving many of the comments
unaddressed for now. While the conformance terminology used in the DITA 1.2 spec.
is far from perfect, I do think that it is much better than what we had in DITA
1.0 and 1.1 where there was essentially no conformance statement. And we’ve
made some progress in terms if using the must/should/may terminology more consistently
throughout the spec., although there is much more work that should be done. I’m looking for guidance from the DITA TC before I
start to address specific comments from the review. Is what I outlined
above OK? Is it OK to leave many of the comments unaddressed for DITA
1.2? Does anyone have other specific suggestions about how to address these
issues? To see the 3rd review comments on the Conformance
section, see: http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Conformance3
-Jeff |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]