RE: [ws-rx-editors] Changes to RDDL docs . . .

[Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

Title: Changes to RDDL docs . . .

1.       I think that was a previous TC decision, don’t see a reason to change.

2.       Any variation of doc or Word seems fine to me. For Office Open XML we’d have to save in the new format, we’ve been working with the old binary format so far. That’s a simple Save As and there are plugins to handle that format in older versions of Word. So if that’s preferred I don’t see any issue with that approach either. I’d say again it’s Dug’s call since he is doing the heavy lifting here.

3.       The rules are editable source, HTML and PDF (or was PDF even required?).  So since the binary doc (or Office Open XML) is the editable format I don’t think we need to provide any other formats unless we want to do the work.

 

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:10 AM
To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx-editors] Changes to RDDL docs . . .

 

I'm thinking about what changes I need to make to the RDDL docs for the new CD06 files. I have a couple of questions:

1.) Is the PDF document still going to be the normative version of the spec, or should the Word document be the normative version?

2.) If the PDF doc is still normative, what should I call the additional link to the ".doc" documents; "Word", "Microsoft Word", "Office Open XML"?

3.) I'm assuming we're not going to publish any documents in OpenDoc format?

- gp