RE: Document Authoring Tool Woes

[Darren Platt <dplatt@securant.com>]

All,

I have the same recollection as Bob does regarding formatting.  I also agree
that we should amend to allow bulleted and numbered lists.

Regards,

Darren



> -----Original Message-----
> From: George_Robert_Blakley_III@tivoli.com
> [mailto:George_Robert_Blakley_III@tivoli.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 8:29 AM
> To: Eve L. Maler
> Cc: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: Document Authoring Tool Woes
>
>
> All,
>
> Just to be clear,  unless I seriously misunderstood the response to the
> discussion I started on the
> call Friday,  the use cases & requirements subgroup has not yet made any
> decision about either
> what format its documents will finally be in or what tools it will use.
>
> The interim agreement we reached, in the interests of keeping our options
> open, was to use any
> tool you choose, but to circulate work products in the following formats:
>
>      text:
>
>           Format: HTML or RTF
>           Rules:    use only "body",  "heading level 1", and
> "heading level
> 2" tags (for now)
>
>                I'd like to propose amending this by allowing you to also
> use bulleted
>                and numbered lists, if that's OK
>
>      figures:
>
>           Format: .ppt or JPEG
>
> We did agree that the output format we'll use, whatever tools and source
> formats are chosen, will
> be Adobe Acrobat .pdf.
>
> We *discussed* but *did not* decide for sure on the use of XML as the
> format for the final document.
> I'm still investigating tool support for this.
>
> As I said on the call, my criteria are:
>
>      Whatever tools and format we choose must be able to support the
> following:
>
>           numbering (at least of paragraphs; preferably of lines also, for
> reference when reviewing)
>           revision marks
>           imbedded figures
>
> --bob
>
> Bob Blakley
> Chief Scientist, Security
> Tivoli Systems, Inc.
>
>
> "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@east.sun.com> on 01/22/2001 09:53:16 AM
>
> To:   security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: Document Authoring Tool Woes
>
>
>
> At 06:08 PM 1/21/01 -0500, Orchard, David wrote:
> >I suggest that you try talking with Eve about the W3C xml/xmlspec
> dtd/xslt.
> >When I was active at co-editing XInclude and XLink, there was a W3C DTD.
> >Then each WG created it's own stylesheet.  The XLink Ben Trafford and I
> >copied mostly from the Schema WG.
>
> The XMLspec DTD is being used for many of W3C's specifications.  I have
> maintained it for the past few years.  My colleague, Norm Walsh, is the
> primary maintainer for the XSLT stylesheet that produces HTML output, and
> html2ps was used very successfully for the XML 1.0 Second Edition spec for
> producing PDF.  If you want to see samples of the DTD and its output, go
> to:
>
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml
>
> There are several free XML editors.  Most of them (like XML Spy)
> are really
> not meant for writing prose, but there are others that work pretty well in
> this respect.  I like XED, which is a simple text editor that is
> DTD-aware,
> and emacs users could use the XML mode that's out there.  Check out the
> following XML portal for a list of free XML editors:
>
>    http://www.startkabel.nl/k/xml/
>
> >Images were created in whatever, then saved as gif.
>
> I think standardizing on GIF or JPEG would work just fine.
>
> >You also might want to check with other Oasis TC's to see if Oasis has
> >developed an OASIS Spec DTD/Schema.  If not, you could be in
> ground-breaking
> >territory!  Imagine, you could kick-off the standard that other
> OASIS tc's
> >use.
>
> A few months back, I was in discussions with some OASIS, W3C, and IETF
> people to see about making a more generic version of XMLspec for use in
> other standards development organizations.  I never went through with it,
> but it would be trivial to remove the W3C-specificity out of
> XMLspec, and I
> bet I could convince Norm to modify his stylesheet to (e.g.) stick the
> OASIS logo in there.
>
> My strong preference is to use XML for our specifications, and I'm willing
> to do some work to help this happen.  It means a little more hassle and
> initial discomfort with the tools, but it's nothing compared to passing
> around proprietary file formats that some people have problems
> with (I have
> to admit that StarOffice sometimes does a bad job with Word files
> that have
> embedded graphics), and it just looks really bad to use something
> proprietary. :-)  However, I will leave this matter up to Bob Blakley and
> the other editors to decide (perhaps the discussion should be
> carried on in
> the security-editors list...).
>
>          Eve
> --
> Eve Maler                                          +1 781 442 3190
> Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    eve.maler @ east.sun.com
>
>