Difference between revisions of "V3 Publishing ConCall Minutes 20090909"
Astechishin (talk | contribs) (New page: :Return to Publishing Committee :Minutes of Recent Publishing Conference Calls ==Wednesday, September 9, 2009 -- 4:00 PM Eas...) |
Astechishin (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Don asked the group if the tentative NE should be posted for review. Austin said yes. Don asked if the group preferred a Zip file or Web based review site. Austin preferred the web-site and there was general agreement. | Don asked the group if the tentative NE should be posted for review. Austin said yes. Don asked if the group preferred a Zip file or Web based review site. Austin preferred the web-site and there was general agreement. | ||
| − | discussion about inclusion of | + | There was discussion about the inclusion of Lab in NE2009. Austin had thought that it would have been included and that he had been working with the work group to that effect. Woody stated that its exclusion had been arbitrary. Woody stated that he would try to include Lab for the following reasons: |
| + | *Lab had passed ballot prior to Jan 2009, it was merely in recirculation ballot | ||
| + | *There is no stated reconciliation deadline | ||
| + | *The publishing of the normative edition is late | ||
| + | *Austin had been discussing the issues in resolving outstanding comments with the Work Group | ||
| + | *Woody did not research any of the prior discussions on the Lab domain | ||
| − | + | Don will also check with Karen if the domain was submitted to ANSI for approval | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Austin=== | ===Austin=== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 34: | ||
===Gregg=== | ===Gregg=== | ||
Gregg had issues with determining which CMETs, were being balloted. | Gregg had issues with determining which CMETs, were being balloted. | ||
| + | |||
He wondered if it is possible to have work groups clearly define which CMETs are being balloted. | He wondered if it is possible to have work groups clearly define which CMETs are being balloted. | ||
| − | Gregg was informed the V3 Publishing work group | + | Gregg was informed the V3 Publishing work group is investigating a policy of only publishing to the ballot the current ballot content. The normative CMETs and wrappers also be published to the ballot site. |
| − | + | Draft CMETs will disappear. | |
| − | will require list from editor | + | |
| − | + | The new ballot paradigm will require a list from the work group or the editor for the domain. | |
| + | |||
| + | Although it would not be published to the ballot site, artifacts would continue to be stored in SVN. | ||
===Adjourned at 4:53=== | ===Adjourned at 4:53=== | ||
== == | == == | ||
Latest revision as of 05:18, 15 September 2009
Contents
Wednesday, September 9, 2009 -- 4:00 PM Eastern
Present
Beeler, Kreisler, Lloyd, McDaniel, Seppala, Stechishin, Savage
Agenda
Call to order at 4:02
Review Minutes of September 2, 2009
Andy/MK 5-0-0
2010 Publishing Schedule
All present on the call agreed that skipping the fall 2010 ballot cycle (between the Fall WGM and the Jan 2011 WGM) for version 3 publishing appears reasonable. This applies only to new ballots using the V3 publishing process, reconciliation, CDA, stand-alone documents, version 2.x, and Word based ballot items would be published for ballot as normal.
Normative Edition
Woody had finished a complete build of Normative Edition 2009. The number of errors is within a few pecentage points of the last normative edition. There were 6 additional vocabulary errors. The number of binding errors was consistent. The normative edition was built using RIM 2.21 (from August 2008) and the Vocabulary MIF from February 15, 2009.
Don asked the group if the tentative NE should be posted for review. Austin said yes. Don asked if the group preferred a Zip file or Web based review site. Austin preferred the web-site and there was general agreement.
There was discussion about the inclusion of Lab in NE2009. Austin had thought that it would have been included and that he had been working with the work group to that effect. Woody stated that its exclusion had been arbitrary. Woody stated that he would try to include Lab for the following reasons:
- Lab had passed ballot prior to Jan 2009, it was merely in recirculation ballot
- There is no stated reconciliation deadline
- The publishing of the normative edition is late
- Austin had been discussing the issues in resolving outstanding comments with the Work Group
- Woody did not research any of the prior discussions on the Lab domain
Don will also check with Karen if the domain was submitted to ANSI for approval
Austin
Austin had issues with the table view in the ballot. The table was missings all of the cell borders when displayed in IE7 (or the borders were not black). Other attendees did not have the same issue with other browsers. Don was able to duplicate the issue. Austin noted the previous ballot displayed correctly.
Don compared the CSS files from the previous ballot and identified the error. The was a minor (unrequested) change in the stylesheet for the table (possibly from the transform). Don would look at ensuring a fix was in place.
Gregg
Gregg had issues with determining which CMETs, were being balloted.
He wondered if it is possible to have work groups clearly define which CMETs are being balloted.
Gregg was informed the V3 Publishing work group is investigating a policy of only publishing to the ballot the current ballot content. The normative CMETs and wrappers also be published to the ballot site. Draft CMETs will disappear.
The new ballot paradigm will require a list from the work group or the editor for the domain.
Although it would not be published to the ballot site, artifacts would continue to be stored in SVN.
