Re: Proposals


Wade Hampton (whampton@staffnet.com)
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:15:53 -0500


Kim Lester wrote:
>
> I think one of the ways to make progress in this group
> is for us to make well defined proposals on particular
> issues
Agree....>
> Proposals should be short and sweet, they don't have to
> be in legalistic, comments/draft reviews should knock
> out any ambiguities.
They should be readable and precise. If there are any
ambiguities, people will ALWAYS make the wrong assumptions....
>
> Having said that (because it justifies my next comments :-) )
>
> ===================
> Proposals:
>
> Terms (Note these are just working names for convenience)
> -----
> Open Document Format - A documentation format defined by this group
>
> Open Document Environment - the entity comprising
> - the ODF
> - all documents in the ODF format
> - all documents that may be automatically converted
> into compliant ODF.
> - all software to convert to/from the ODF,
> - ODF compatible doc. browser softare
> - ODF hardcopy guidelines
> - all ODF compliant indexing/categorisation software
> - any network protocols required to access remote ODEs
> - document authoring guidelines
- procedures such as versioning, validation, etc.
- master repository

>
> [Note we need to vote/evolve the above definitions as well]
>
> ODF Specifications (in no particular order)
> ------------------
>
> 1) Define a _single_ document format: The Open Document Format (ODF)
- Primary ODF document format
- acceptible alternate format for technical notes or very short docs
- acceptible alternates for external docs
>
> 2) The ODF will be a valid doucumentation "source" format
> (ie not just an output format like postscript)
Agree
>
> 3) The ODF shall define doument formatting/structure not appearance
>
> 4) The ODF will be the primary repository format.
>
> 5) The ODF will be the distribution format.
or primary format, also allow distribution in html and postscript?
>
> 6) All documents in the ODE must be either
> a) native ODF
> b) be provided with tools to convert them to compliant ODF
(B) might cover some of the alternative document formats I alluded
to above....
>
> [ NOTE: 6b permits use of existing formats for source material ]
>
> ODE Specifications
> ------------------
>
> 7) ODE shall define a minimum set of features for a Compliant
> Document Browser
should be WWW-capable (e.g., php scripts to display/browse via
a browser or similar)
>
> 8) ODE Ccmpliant Document Browser specification shall not
> exclude the use of text based technology.
Agree -- hence text to speech would also be a capability!
>
> 9) ODE shall define a minimum set of search/indexing criterial
> for a compliant ODE.
Hence should define key fields and required data items. Perhaps
an ODE data dictionary defining the key data items, descriptions,
usage, etc.
>
> 10) ODE shall include authoring/editing requirements
>
> 11) ODE authoring/editing requirements will have two categories
> a) mandatory rules
> b) guidelines
>
> [ NOTE: Before anyone gets worked up, the mandatory set has not been
> defined
> and may be empty. Regardless, all ODF docs must conform to some
> technical rules, it also makes sense that content/changes etc
> be subject to some broad rules to avoid potential chaos ]
There should be several mandantory rules such as general outline,
title, author, version, date, license, key terms/concepts, and synopsis.
These would all facilitate indexing and searching.
>
> ** These specs are not the only ones but they are a good place
> ** to start and pretty non-controversial
>
> ===================
>
> Please feel free to make suggestions about anything
> potentially wrong with these proposals.
>
> Once we get the above specs sorted out we need to:
> develop our indexing/categorisation requirements
> the best ODF to meet our needs
Then go back and update the above -- it is a cycle.

-- 
W. Wade, Hampton  <whampton@staffnet.com>  

Linux is new, it's come out of nowhere, it's free. Hard to beat that price. And it's taking marketshare left and right.

--Microsoft's lawyer, in closing argument, Bristol v. Microsoft, http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/bti/07-15closing.htm



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Jan 12 2000 - 15:17:05 EST