My apologies for not getting you feedback on this sooner. Several things have made it a bit crazy lately.
I've been through the files and they look good. Real close to ready-to-publish. Here are some tweaks and next steps, mostly minor formatting notes.
1) First thing, we'll need to have both a Committee Spec Draft copy (...-csd01.xxx) *and* the Committee Spec Public Review Draft (...-csprd01.xxx) to load. You can bundle them and approve them all in 1 ZIP file and I'll load them separately.
2) In addition to the HTML document, we need a copy of the editable source and a PDF.
3) The purple for the text headings is different from the one in our template. The one in our template is RGB 59,0,111
4) I see that in the catalog file, the comment says to send comments to docbook@. It should use email@example.com
. Only TC members can send to docbook@ but anyone can subscribe and send to docbook-comment@
1) For the Committee Specification Draft, the stage description under the title will be:
Committee Specification Draft 01
For the public review copy, it will be:
Committee Specification Draft 01 /
Public Review Draft 01
2) The approval date will be set to whatever date the TC approves the CSD/CSPRD obviously.
3) Under Specification URIs we use "This version" instead of both caps "This Version"
4) Under "This version," you'll also need to include links to the editable source and PDF:
and in the public review copy
The same also is true for the "Latest version" links
6) Additional artifacts looks good. Related Work should be lowercase 'w'. Namespace should be lowercase n.
7) Under Status, at the end of the last paragraph, we now include a sentence that reads:
That helps people who want to know if the TC has other technical work besides this one.
I'm not sure about including the sentence about the 'non-normative' errata. Errata are supposed to be approved and published along with the standards they correct. I think I'd prefer it if you remove the sentence.
8) Here is what to use for the citation format - for the Committee Spec Draft
and for the public review draft
9) In section 4. Conformance, the second paragraph refers to "reference documentation" that describes additional constraints. Where is that document? Is it something separate from this publication?
10) In the Introduction, there is a sentence that reads: "The current list of outstanding requests is available through the SourceForge tracker interface. This is also the preferred mechanism for submitting new requests." -- I realize that the SourceForge project has been there for a long time however technically it violates TC Process to accept comments from any other source than firstname.lastname@example.org. I'd be more comfortable if you would remove the "This is also the preferred..." sentence or replace it with one pointing people to docbook-comment@. Copying comments from that list to the tracker is not a problem but soliciting comments there is.
As far as the next steps go, they'd be these:
- Once the revised files are ready to go, package them all into a ZIP file and load it to the Kavi site.
- The TC can approve that working draft as a CSD and approve it for public review using a motion like this:
"I move that the TC approve DocBook Version 5.1 and all associated artifacts packaged together in <URL to ZIP file in TC's Kavi document repository> as a Committee Specification Draft and designate the HTML version of the specification as authoritative. I also move that the Committee Specification Draft be released for public review."
I'll then take it from there - working with you to make any last minutes tweaks, loading the files to docs.oasis-open.org/docbook/ and getting the public review started.
Anyhow, that's what I saw with my review. You've got something very close to being ready to go. Congrats on all the work! Let me know how I can help in the next phase.