Bruce and Eliot,
A couple of points/questions:
From Bruce:
>
> My thinking: A list of features is useful to vendors because
> it helps to level the marketing field, but it is not essential
> for the TC when it is called upon to judge partial conformance.
>
> <snip>
>
> This presumes that we do have a process in place that brings
> vendors before us for judgement of their marketing claims
> (there's that word).
>
What do you mean by "judging" marketing claims? I may have missed this
being a relative newcomer, but I didn't think the TC was planning to
take an active role in judging conformance.
If it is, that needs to be part of the conformance statement (it isn't
in the version I reviewed). As an aside, I'd be really cautious about
giving the TC an active role in judging marketing claims; even with
automated procedures, I think it would be a major time sink.
Regarding feature lists, I think requiring implementers to document
their degree of conformance in some form, even if they can't enumerate
features from a list provided by the TC, is a good thing. Anyone
evaluating DITA implementations will want it. While a checklist from a
known feature list would be ideal (and might be doable by pointing
people to the Adoption TC's list), I don't think the lack of a list
should stop the TC from requiring implementers to document their claims.
Best,
Dick
---------------------------------
XML Press
XML for Technical Communicators
http://xmlpress.net
(970) 231-3624
