[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] latest docs
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 SubjectRE: [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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]