RE: [ws-rx-editors] latest docs

["Mary McRae" <marypmcrae@gmail.com>]

Hi Doug,

 

  What I'm suggesting is that the TC decides to author documents in tool X, and then has at least one, if not two other deliverables. If the spec is authored/edited in XHTML, then only a PDF is produced at key milestones. If a word-processing tool of some sort, or some specific XML vocabulary such as DITA or DocBook is used, then the TC must generate XHTML and PDF for those same key milestones. The presumption is that a) either the tools in use do an adequate job of producing the requisite formats, or b) tools be provided to the TC (or staff) to ensure that the outputs properly conform.

 

While we have tool output of XHTML, we don't have *adequate*. That's not the TC's fault, and it was never the intent that the TC would be required to do additional publication work before being able to move forward with a specification. If the required formats are delivered to TC Administration, we must either then a) live with them, b) clean them up ourselves, or c) provide an adequate toolset to the editors that will automatically perform the necessary cleanup steps. At the current time, we're at a) live with them.

 

This should not be seen as preventing the TC from performing the additional work of maintaining two versions if they find themselves with extra time on their hands, or a strong desire to make sure that each of the outputs are adequate; it's just not a requirement.

 

In the meantime, it's on my goals sheet to discover/build tools that will get us to c).

 

Regards,

 

Mary

---

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:45 PM
To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
Cc: 'Gilbert Pilz'; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] latest docs

ummm, we need to be very clear about this because this will dramatically change how we work.  Are you suggesting that we can drop the HTML version and stick with just the PDF if keeping them in-sync is too hard?

-Doug

"Mary McRae" <marypmcrae@gmail.com>

10/25/2006 01:38 PM

Please respond to
<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>

To	"'Gilbert Pilz'" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [ws-rx-editors] latest docs

Hi Gilbert,
 
  This was certainly never the intent of the TC Process. Some TCs maintain their specs in XHTML and don't use a word-processing app at all, but if the TC prefers to use OpenOffice or some other ODF app to author/edit then it doesn't need to be overly concerned with the HTML output.
 
Regards,
 
Mary

---

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:30 PM
To: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] latest docs

As far as I know, it is. Editing is going to be more painful from this point on because we need to maintain parallel OpenDoc and HTML versions of the spec. :-( This sucks, but it was the only way to produce a readable HTML version.
 
- gp

---

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:37 AM
To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx-editors] latest docs


was thinking about applying some of the resolved PR issues to the spec but before I did I wanted to make sure I extracted the right/latest versions.  Am I correct in assuming that the stuff in the CD4 folder is the latest?
-Doug