It wasn't properly captured. It
is now.
/Bruce
It's my understanding that there were changes above and beyond the
XHTML formatting issues. The TC must approve the newly revised CD01 R1 as
CD02. The files must also be appropriately identified, including the hypertext
links that appear in the front matter.
I don't know intention vs reality; if the motion was to approve the XHTML
version then that isn't sufficient. If the motion was to approve CD02 then
that wasn't properly captured.
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.
On Jun 16, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Kristen James Eberlein wrote:
Mary, the TC's
intention was to vote to approve the revised CD 01. What do the minutes need
to say in order to convey the intention properly and have the 60-day request
approved? Or does the contents of the submission ZIP simply need to be
marked as CD 02?
Best,
Kris
Kristen James
Eberlein Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting Secretary, OASIS
DITA Technical Committee Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption
Committee www.eberleinconsulting.com +1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 6/16/2010
2:08 PM, Mary McRae wrote:
1D9964A7-AF00-443A-8F13-608599A2B8D8@oasis-open.org
type="cite">In looking at the meeting minutes, I do not see that the TC
voted to approve a new Committee Draft but that it okayed the XHTML
rendition, and the submission zip file still bears the CD01 designation.
The request is therefore rejected.
Respectfully,
|