[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Update on proposal 13079
For tomorrow's meeting, I'm supposed to have a stage 2 proposal for 13079 - update rules for keyref matching text. The impetus behind that is really to fix the current (broken and unclear) language around matching text. I put together initial thoughts on this at the TC wiki, which we reviewed some months ago: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/KeyrefMatchingText While working on the stage 2 proposal, it started to feel like make-work without a clear purpose. Basically - the goal of 13079 is to fix a spec topic. Most of the background work is done (figuring out what to change). Creating a stage 2 proposal - with no new elements, features, or behaviors - just creates a lot of work for me and for TC reviewers that will not change the outcome. This seems more like the spec issues discussed last week, where we have incorrect/incomplete spec topics about domains that really must be fixed. Those do not represent new proposals, instead they are (potentially substantial) specification issues with a lot of work but nothing "new" that requires a proposal. I think 13079 falls into that same category. I'd like to discuss at tomorrow's meeting, and see if it would be OK to proceed with this one as a specification edit rather than a full scale 1.3 proposal. Thanks - Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]