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

["Charles-H. Schulz" <charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com>]

David,

David RR Webber (XML) a écrit :
> 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.

Now you got me a bit confused. I did read the threads on this list, but
in the way I understand them, " a simple XML format for documentation
purposes" is perhaps even more misleading than the proposed scope of the TC.
Maybe the term "exchange" could be coined -carefully- in the light of
the EU work on open standards.

Regards,

Charles.
>  
> 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 <http://www.xmlbystealth.net/>
>     www.xmlsummerschool.com <http://www.xmlsummerschool.com/>
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com <#Compose>] 
>     Sent: 23 April 2007 14:32
>     To: docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org <#Compose>
>     Subject: Re: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name
>
>     On 23/04/07, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info <#Compose>> 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 <http://www.dpawson.co.uk/>
>
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>     docstandards-interop-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org <#Compose>
>     For additional commands, e-mail:
>     docstandards-interop-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org <#Compose>
>
>
>     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
>      
>         
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 


-- 
Charles-H. Schulz,
Associé / Associate
Ars Aperta.