RE: [ws-rx-editors] latest docs

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:] 
  
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:45 PM
To: 
  
Cc: 'Gilbert Pilz'; 
  
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" 
        <> 
        
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