[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: OASIS requiring items in spec *clearly* marked in template as optional
Kim and Mary (and Scott by cc): We’ve diligently jumped through lots of hoops this year to
comply *exactly* with the OASIS templates for specs as posted on the
OASIS Web site. Now you are asking that we add something clearly marked as optional
(see http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/OASISSpecificationTemplateV4.1.html#AC)
I’ve got a problem with this. We want to move ahead with
our 15-day review as soon as possible, so that we have a chance of the DITA 1.2
spec being approved as a standard this year. Let me know ASAP about your plans to move the 15-day review
forward. I am available tomorrow morning for a phone call if needed. Best
regards, Kris Kristen
James Eberlein l DITA Architect and Technical
Specialist l SDL Structured Content Technologies Division l (t) + 1
(919) 682-2290 l keberlein@sdl.com Please
consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Kim Goolsby
[mailto:kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org] Hi Kristen, I do understand your concern about the appendix. I'm
forwarding the email that I received from Mary regarding this question.
'Revision History' has been required of other specs for which I have performed
a QC Review. That is why I asked Mary before sending my comments to you. I will
be interested to hear her expert opinion on the matter. Best regards, Kim ---------- Forwarded message
---------- Hi Kim, There should be a revision history. Thanks! Mary On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Kim Goolsby wrote:
I've just reviewed this spec
& see no errors but I do have a question. Neither this spec nor its
predecessor contains a Revision History appendix. Is this an oversight or a
rule not enforced for this spec? ---------- Forwarded message
----------
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]