Re: [Scrollkeeper-devel] Relations with OMF

[Dan M. <da...@ea...>]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bob Stayton wrote:

> It sounds like the ScrollKeeper project needs to 
> work with OMF to settle these DTD issues.  Kendall
> responded, but is no longer working on OMF.  
> Do the SK developers already have a contact at
> OMF to work with, or should I (or someone else)
> initiate something?  Through the ldp-meta mailing
> list (which I'm on, but don't see much traffic)?

I think Greg Leblanc is, in name, the active maintainer of the DTD now.  I
think he has some work to do ;)  I think he's quietly lurking on both of
these mailing lists.  (Greg - are you here?)

We definitely need to work with the OMF group more, not only on the DTD,
but possibly on the OMF specification itself.  I need to look over your
emails in the last couple days more carefully to understand exactly what
belongs in the OMF and what we consider as ScrollKeeper-specific
extensions.

BTW: I raised a handful of issues which seemed at the time to be
inconsistancies and/or ambiguities in the spec and DTD on ldp-meta some
time ago.  I think those issues are still unresolved, and may be a good
place to begin.

I would recommend starting a thread on ldp-meta for each of the OMF
elements to review whether the spec is complete, unambiguous, and that the
DTD is consistant with the spec.

Bob - Any help you can offer to help move things along would be
appreciated :)

Dan