|Subject:||RE: [dita] Groups - DITA 1.2 Feature Article: Status of the DITA 1.2 Specification (DITA12SpecStatusUpdate.pdf) uploaded|
|From:||Grosso, Paul (pgro...@ptc.com)|
|Date:||Aug 2, 2010 7:50:47 am|
-----Original Message----- From: joan...@comtech-serv.com [mailto:joann.hackos@comtech- serv.com] Sent: Monday, 2010 August 02 7:59 To: dita...@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: di...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [dita] Groups - DITA 1.2 Feature Article: Status of the DITA 1.2 Specification (DITA12SpecStatusUpdate.pdf) uploaded
The document named DITA 1.2 Feature Article: Status of the DITA 1.2 Specification (DITA12SpecStatusUpdate.pdf) has been submitted by Dr. JoAnn Hackos to the OASIS DITA Adoption TC document repository.
Download Document: http://www.oasis- open.org/committees/download.php/38846/DITA12SpecStatusUpdate%5B1%5D.pd f
---------- Delete the final "took longer than expected" sentence.
----------- Delete "Finally".
---------- xref isn't displaying very well
At that point, the Technical Committee votes to approve the Committee Specification.
At that point, the Technical Committee votes to approve the document as a Committee Specification.
we expect formal approval of the 1.2 Specification
we expect the specification to become an official OASIS Standard
[Note that a Committee Specification is already "formally approved".]
Readiness for use =================
----------- ...have announced DITA 1.2 support in the next few months
Wording problems ("have announced" something in the future?).
...many organizations have begun authoring in DITA 1.2 and implementing the new features.
Perhaps change "implementing" to "using" or "taking advantage of".
---------- ...since version 1.5.
Casual readers may not realize that 1.5 refers to the OT, not DITA. Perhaps this should read "since version 1.5 of the Toolkit."
Later in the same para, the phrases "the 1.2 version of the Open Toolkit" and "the 1.2 Open Toolkit" are used in such a fashion that even I do not understand what is meant here. Are we referring to "a version of the OT that supports DITA 1.2" or version 1.2 of the Toolkit?
However, I think this entire paragraph is inappropriate. The OT is another implementation, and its mention should be incorporated into the previous paragraph. Therefore:
Merging second and third para
----------------------------- I suggest the second and third para be merged to read something like:
The vendor community has also been active in augmenting their products to support the DITA 1.2 specification. We have seen DITA 1.2 versions released by XML editor developers PTC/Arbortext, JustSystems/XMetal, and SyncRO Soft/Oxygen, and DITA2Go. Content Management System (CMS) vendors SDL/Xysoft and Ixiasoft have announced that they will provide DITA 1.2 support within the next few months. The DITA Open Toolkit, which is developed independently of the OASIS DITA Technical Committee, has included the DITA 1.2 features and changes since version 1.5 of the Toolkit (version 1.5.2 is currently available for download from SourceForge). As a result, many organizations have begun authoring in DITA 1.2 and taking advantage of the new features.
----------- I feel that the official link to the set of DITA Adoption TC writings should be the one on our OASIS public TC page.
---------- This says both too much and not enough at the same time. If we want to write a white paper on how one should customize a DITA application, we can do that, but for the purposes of this document, we should just replace that paragraph with something like:
DITA 1.2 is completely backward compatible with DITA 1.1. Provided any customizations you may have done to DITA 1.1 were done using appropriate customization methods, you should be able to process your DITA 1.1 content using a DITA 1.2 installation with no changes to your content.
Last para of this section
------------------------- The xref doesn't seem like an appropriate one with which to contact the TC.