dita — archive

[Su-Laine Yeo <syeo@justsystems.com>]

Thanks Jeff for
the summary. Regarding item #2, I also believe it should be left out. I assume
that we if nobody asks for it to be re-added, we don’t need to discuss it
further, right?



Su-Laine



Su-Laine
Yeo

Solutions Consultant 

JustSystems Canada, Inc.

Office: 778-327-6356

syeo@justsystems.com

www.justsystems.com 

XMetaL Community Forums:
http://forums.xmetal.com/









From: Ogden, Jeff
[mailto:jogden@ptc.com]

Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:52 AM

To: Su-Laine Yeo; Eliot Kimber

Cc: dita

Subject: RE: [dita] Filtering logic for <enumerationdef> element







So, if I'm following this discussion correctly, this
issue is pretty much resolved:



1.  The
feature as approved by the DITA TC stays in as part of DITA 1.2.



2.  There
is still a question about a part of proposal being omitted from the draft DITA 1.2
spec. and what, if anything, we should do about that.  Robert suggested
leaving it out of DITA 1.2.



3.  We'll
try to come up with a better process for DITA 1.3.



So what do we want to do about item #2?  If the
omitted description was really part of the proposal that was approved by the
TC, is there a reason not to include it now other than that that is more work
for the 4th review and we are getting tired?  To be legalistic, to leave
something out that was previously approved by a vote of the TC really requires
another vote by the TC.  I guess we don’t have to be legalistic about
everything and I could live with this either way.  Mostly we just need to
make a decision.



   -Jeff



>