OASIS DocBook TC2

 View Only
  • 1.  Proposed change to scheme versioning

    Posted 10-25-2011 16:18
    Hi folks, We're about to issue DocBook V5.1b5. Which might be used to make DocBook Publishers V1.1b3. Or maybe Simplified DocBook V1.3b1. Or...oh, this is insane! I propose a new versioning mechanism: DocBook V5.1b5. DocBook XInclud V5.1b5. DocBook Assembly V5.1b5. DocBook Publishers V5.1b5-1. Simplified DocBook V5.1b5-1. If we fix a bug in Publishers, that'll make V5.1b5-2. If we fixed a tiny little typo, we could even consider V5.1b5-1.1 I suppose. When DocBook V5.1 is released, then we'll make Publishers V5.1-1, etc. It's not perfect, but it sure seems like an improvement to me. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> Men are more like the times they http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ live in than they are like their Chair, DocBook Technical Committee fathers.--Ali Ibn-abi-talib Attachment: pgpi9Go39nlUf.pgp Description: PGP signature


  • 2.  Re: [docbook-tc] Proposed change to scheme versioning

    Posted 10-25-2011 16:22
    On 25 October 2011 17:18, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > We're about to issue DocBook V5.1b5. Which might be used to make DocBook Publishers V1.1b3. > Or maybe Simplified DocBook V1.3b1. Or...oh, this is insane! > > I propose a new versioning mechanism: > > DocBook V5.1b5. > DocBook XInclud V5.1b5. > DocBook Assembly V5.1b5. > DocBook Publishers V5.1b5-1. > Simplified DocBook V5.1b5-1. > > If we fix a bug in Publishers, that'll make V5.1b5-2. If we fixed a > tiny little typo, we could even consider V5.1b5-1.1 I suppose. > > When DocBook V5.1 is released, then we'll make Publishers V5.1-1, etc. > > It's not perfect, but it sure seems like an improvement to me. Only if the 'subset' schemas are updated each time you do the main schema? I.e. If I go looking for changes in simple... and there aren't any? Can you do a full set of subsets from one Norm? I know it's a great schema... but that strikes me as 'hard'? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk


  • 3.  Re: [docbook-tc] Proposed change to scheme versioning

    Posted 10-25-2011 16:55
    Sounds reasonable to me to keep the versions in sync. We'll have a little bit of work to do to communicate this out. If we start incorporating some of the RFEs, that will generate a new number. In your proposal, that is handled by the -# correct? For example, Publishers v5.1 would be the base. Any changes would be Publishers v5.1-1, right? Are there any OASIS naming conventions we need to follow? For example, the original publishers spec was: publishers-1.0-spec-cd-02.html would we want to use something like:  db-publishers-5.1-01 db-assembly-5.1-beta-01 db-simplified-5.1-beta-01 db-xinc-5.1-beta-01 db-core-5.1-beta-01 OR should we put the version number at the beginning: db-5.1-publishers-beta-01 db-5.1-assembly-beta-01 db-5.1-xinc-beta-01 db-5.1-core-beta-01 Thanks, --Scott On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Norman Walsh wrote: Hi folks, We're about to issue DocBook V5.1b5. Which might be used to make DocBook Publishers V1.1b3. Or maybe Simplified DocBook V1.3b1. Or...oh, this is insane! I propose a new versioning mechanism: DocBook V5.1b5. DocBook XInclud V5.1b5. DocBook Assembly V5.1b5. DocBook Publishers V5.1b5-1. Simplified DocBook V5.1b5-1. If we fix a bug in Publishers, that'll make V5.1b5-2. If we fixed a tiny little typo, we could even consider V5.1b5-1.1 I suppose. When DocBook V5.1 is released, then we'll make Publishers V5.1-1, etc. It's not perfect, but it sure seems like an improvement to me.                                        Be seeing you,                                          norm -- Norman Walsh < ndw@nwalsh.com >       Men are more like the times they http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ live in than they are like their Chair, DocBook Technical Committee fathers.--Ali Ibn-abi-talib


  • 4.  Re: [docbook-tc] Proposed change to scheme versioning

    Posted 10-25-2011 20:28
    On 25.10.2011 18:53, Hudson, Scott wrote: > OR should we put the version number at the beginning: > > db-5.1-publishers-beta-01 > db-5.1-assembly-beta-01 > db-5.1-xinc-beta-01 > db-5.1-core-beta-01 I think that naming schema similar to this would be less confusing and it will better express that those customizations are on top of DocBook V5.1. I'm in favor of change in this direction. One question is still remaining -- what we will put into version attribute? Will we change pattern for version attribute or we will stick with the current state of affairs? Jirka -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing ------------------------------------------------------------------ OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member ------------------------------------------------------------------ Attachment: signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature


  • 5.  Re: [docbook-tc] Proposed change to scheme versioning

    Posted 10-26-2011 06:52
    On 25 October 2011 21:27, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: > On 25.10.2011 18:53, Hudson, Scott wrote: > >> OR should we put the version number at the beginning: >> >> db-5.1-publishers-beta-01 >> db-5.1-assembly-beta-01 >> db-5.1-xinc-beta-01 >> db-5.1-core-beta-01 > > I think that naming schema similar to this would be less confusing and > it will better express that those customizations are on top of DocBook V5.1. +1. It reads very clearly. > > I'm in favor of change in this direction. One question is still > remaining -- what we will put into version attribute? Will we change > pattern for version attribute or we will stick with the current state of > affairs? IMHO that is largely for the machine? Hence db-5.1.01 would/should suffice? HTH -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk


  • 6.  Re: [docbook-tc] Proposed change to scheme versioning

    Posted 10-26-2011 14:17
    Scott et al, Indeed there are approved OASIS naming conventions. They are spelled out in the Naming Directives at: http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/ndr/namingDirectives-v1.1.html The specific guideline on filenames (in section 4) reads: ------ A filename identifying a specific published instance (stage) of a Work Product, used in a required cover page URI, must have the structure [WP-abbrev]-[version-id]-[stage-abbrev][revisionNumber].[ext] Where: [ WP-abbrev] is a name under TC control matching the agreed-upon Work Product abbreviation [version-id] is a versioning identifier component composed of the single character V OR v (upper- or lower-case), followed by a numeric string matching the rules for Version (e.g., v1.0 OR V1.1) [stage-abbrev] is a stage abbreviation in lower case characters [revisionNumber] is a two-digit number as prescribed below [ext] is a file extension. [Examples: emix-v1.0-csprd01.doc and xrd-v1.1-cs01.xml] ------ The stage abbreviations are those for the sequence of document stages as listed in the TC Process. So CSD = Committee Specification Draft, CNPRD = Committee Note Public Review Draft. The description for Version (in section 5) reads: ------ Formally, a Version of a Work Product is a numeric identifier associated with a focused technical activity that proceeds on the Standards Track or Non-Standards Track through a number of development stages, often leading to the creation of an OASIS final deliverable. A Version in this formal sense must be represented textually by a numeric string composed of digits [0-9] and period (".") corresponding to any of the approved lexical models (#.#, e.g. 1.0; #.##, e.g. 1.01; #.#.#, e.g. 1.2.1; ##.#, e.g. 10.1). Use of any other pattern for a Version identifier must be negotiated with the TC Administration. A Version identifier must be used as a discrete path element in document URIs, and must also be used in a document's principal URI filenames (i.e., stage-specific filenames in required URIs used on a cover page). A Version identifier must also be incorporated into a Work Product name/title, where a title should be composed from a suitable name/identifier followed immediately (without punctuation) by the word "Version" and the Version number, e.g., OpenDocument Version 1.2. ------ Given the above, I would put forward your examples this way: db-publishers-v5.1-csd01 db-assembly-beta-v5.1-csd01 db-simplified-beta-v5.1-csd01 db-xinc-beta-v5.1-csd01 db-core-beta-v5.1-csd01 Let me know if I can help with this in any way. Best, /chet On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Hudson, Scott <scott.hudson@schneider-electric.com> wrote: > Sounds reasonable to me to keep the versions in sync. We'll have a little > bit of work to do to communicate this out. > If we start incorporating some of the RFEs, that will generate a new number. > In your proposal, that is handled by the -# correct? For example, Publishers > v5.1 would be the base. Any changes would be Publishers v5.1-1, right? > Are there any OASIS naming conventions we need to follow? For example, the > original publishers spec was: > > publishers-1.0-spec-cd-02.html > > would we want to use something like: > db-publishers-5.1-01 > db-assembly-5.1-beta-01 > db-simplified-5.1-beta-01 > db-xinc-5.1-beta-01 > db-core-5.1-beta-01 > OR should we put the version number at the beginning: > db-5.1-publishers-beta-01 > db-5.1-assembly-beta-01 > db-5.1-xinc-beta-01 > db-5.1-core-beta-01 > Thanks, > --Scott > On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Norman Walsh wrote: > > Hi folks, > > We're about to issue DocBook V5.1b5. Which might be used to make DocBook > Publishers V1.1b3. > Or maybe Simplified DocBook V1.3b1. Or...oh, this is insane! > > I propose a new versioning mechanism: > > DocBook V5.1b5. > DocBook XInclud V5.1b5. > DocBook Assembly V5.1b5. > DocBook Publishers V5.1b5-1. > Simplified DocBook V5.1b5-1. > > If we fix a bug in Publishers, that'll make V5.1b5-2. If we fixed a > tiny little typo, we could even consider V5.1b5-1.1 I suppose. > > When DocBook V5.1 is released, then we'll make Publishers V5.1-1, etc. > > It's not perfect, but it sure seems like an improvement to me. > >                                        Be seeing you, >                                          norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>       Men are more like the times they > http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ live in than they are like their > Chair, DocBook Technical Committee fathers.--Ali Ibn-abi-talib > > -- /chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-378-3472 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn:     http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter:         http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook:   http://facebook.com/oasis.open