Title: Re: [chairs] need your comments on DocMgmt system requirements
Whoaaa ... MS Word's revision capabilities (whether they
work well or not) are invaluable in multi-editor situations. So NO I could not
live with HTML.
From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 14:57
To:
; Chairs OASIS
Cc: lomas >> Jeff
Lomas
Subject: RE: [chairs] need your comments on DocMgmt system
requirements
HTML I could live with - I already use HTML for documents on a regular
basis. Should be able to get reasonable DIFFs between arbitrary HTML docs.
XML? That would be a harder sell - I don't have a WYSIAWYG editor for an
XML document :-)
Tony Rogers
-----Original Message-----
From: Karl F. Best
[mailto:]
Sent: Thu 19-Feb-04 9:51
To: Chairs OASIS
Cc: lomas >> Jeff Lomas
Subject: Re: [chairs] need your comments on DocMgmt system
requirements
Excellent comments, everyone. Keep 'em coming.
I see a
consensus that we want a sandbox as a phase prior to checkin and
version
control, and a suggestion to use wiki for the sandbox. We will
need to have
access control too, to restrict this to the TC members.
I see a lot of
pros-n-cons for using MSWord together with CVS in the
second phase,
especially as it relates to change control. We're not
committed to CVS yet;
that's just a popular suggestion. How would you
feel about a requirement to
do all of your documents in HTML or XML?
i.e. no proprietary or binary
formats. (Now there's a big can of worms
to open :-) I'm not making any
threats; just wondering if that might be
a good way to go. Perhaps this
would require OASIS providing tools for
the TCs to use; we'd have to ask
some vendors for contributions.
If we did use some text-based format
(as above), would CVS provide us
with change
logs?
-Karl
