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"
<>
10/25/2006 01:38 PM
Please respond to
<>
To
"'Gilbert Pilz'" <>,
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <>
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:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:30 PM
To: Doug Davis;
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:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:37 AM
To:
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
