RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Peter,

 

We had this big discussion two weeks ago.  The current scope text is misleading.  It is my understanding that the whole idea is to NOT get immersed in the OOXML / ODF / PDF quagmire - but instead to provide a simple XML format for documentation purposes - envisioned as a blend of DITA + xhtml + extensions and an XSD.

 

Notice that content authoring tools already support use of XSD templates to instruct the creation of conforming documents - including MS Word, Corel, ODF, and then specialized editors such as XMetal.  So published templates can then be used in a variety of tools to produce the XML content instances themselves. 

 

This would allow the EU to publish templates for documents that would work in any any desktop tool supporting it.

 

In essence this sidesteps the current generation of syntaxes - which are focused much on WYSIWYG content production - rather than content semantic and formatting alignment.

 

Given all that - a simple TC name should elucidate the focus here - and not lead people into thinking the problem being solved is some bigger uber-solution.

 

Thanks, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name
From: "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu>
Date: Tue, April 24, 2007 9:39 am
To: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>,
<docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>

In a European context, "documentation" would nearly always equate to
"technical documentation" and be understood as things like DocBook and
not, say, legislative texts, business documents, etc.

But:
- when does a legislative document get covered by LegalXML?
- when does a business document get covered by UBL?
We can easily get lost: it should be more specific than any "XML
document" but less specific than particular "XML application"
documents.

I understood the scope to be about interoperability between "generic"
documents generated by "all-purpose" word-processing software, be that
in ODF, DocBook, etc - but that begs the more fundamental question:
why isn't the biggest document production platform included, that
generates OOXML? The scope of the proposed TC needs to be serious in
addressing this dimension, or it will be a fool's errand.

Has anyone compared the scope with the new activity in the European
Commission on "Open Document Exchange Formats" (!= ODF)? Could this be
a collaborative effort? Is their title more useful?

I think the proposed TC needs to be MUCH clearer about its scope
before it'll get our vote.

Peter


-------------
Peter F Brown
Founder, Pensive.eu
Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
Lecturer at XML Summer School
---
Personal:
+43 676 610 0250
http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
www.XMLbyStealth.net
www.xmlsummerschool.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com] 
Sent: 23 April 2007 14:32
To: docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name

On 23/04/07, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:
>
> I actually quite like Eduardo's:
>
>  Documentation Standards Interoperability TC.
>
> "Documentation" is vague enough IMHO - and people will likewise need
to read the charter for explicit clarifications

I like the terseness and yes, the generality.
All it means is we need clarification early on in the web pages /
actual standard
to scope the work, which is no bad thing IMHO.


> I'm not sure I'd go into machine v human readable - since that
distinction is rapidly being eroded by smart machine agents.

Yes, I find that (potentially) too constraining. Most will stay one
side of their own
boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the other side is out of scope?

regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
docstandards-interop-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
docstandards-interop-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date:
21/04/2007 11:56
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.10/774 - Release Date:
23/04/2007 17:26