ACTION-89: proposal for presenting summary changes in draft documents

This is a follow up on action 89 - define a proposal for presenting 
summary changes in draft documents

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/actions/89

Resolution :

The editors had investigated a set of options for presenting summary 
changes in draft documents. After looking at the existing approaches we 
had came up with the following resolution :

Where to show the summary:
We would like to have a summary of the CVS activity included into the 
document as an appendix ( the summary document will be checked into CVS 
and can also be accessed separately if needed ) 

How to generate the summary:
Having the amount of work required to manually create this data, the 
editors think that the right approach is to have an automated tool to 
generate these summaries.The summary will be generated using an automated 
tool (script) that reads CVS commits and generates a report based on this 
information.
This report will be manually updated to change some of the content ( if 
necessary ) but we'll want to avoid spending a lot of time on hand writing 
these summaries. We'll invest in a script and stylesheet that can generate 
the results in the format we want.

The steps for generating the summary will be : 
- a script generates the history.xml document based on the CVS history; 
the result is the list of defects as described in here 
http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/downloads/drops/cvsActivity/TPTP-4.4.0-200706210100.html 
. This content can be manually massaged by adding more information or 
hiding some irrelevant data; with the right stylesheet applied to it, it 
can result in a content similar with Sandy's sample 
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.20070309.html

- a stylesheet is applied to this xml and the result is a history.html 
file; this history.html file will be checked into CVS 
- the content of the history.html file is included into the draft spec 

What would be the summary's content /layout :

Ideally, the editors would like to have something similar with Sandy's 
example 
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.20070309.html
Ginny had investigated the possibility of generating the same type of 
output as the XSL, XML, Query, XProc projects ( as shown here 
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.20070309.html 
). It seems that this will be hard to automate in which case we'll not 
pursue it. We'll use this format as a template and try to generate 
something similar using the proposed approach

Thank you,
Valentina Popescu
IBM Toronto Labs
Phone:  (905)413-2412         (tie-line  969)
Fax: (905) 413-4850