[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-comment] 8.5.4 of ODF 1.0
Makoto, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote: > Although this clause is almost understandable, > some examples would be very useful. > > OK, here is my standard question on request for more examples: Tell me how to distinguish in some principled way from your request from a similar request for someone who wants examples for any other part of the standard? In other words, as a standard editor (as opposed to a "handbook" or "FAQ" editor), how do I distinguish what elements or attributes merit examples and which ones don't? Remember that I have to be consistent in the application of that principle. I may be as comfortable with Bessel functions as addition so why would I have examples for the former and not the latter? I have inserted markers in the text that should allow us to easily create an "annotated" version of ODF 1.2 that has as many and as varied a set of examples, supplemental readings, etc., as anyone's heart could desire. But, TC members nor NBs would need to concern themselves with the "annotations" in terms of proofing and/or approving the standard. If you need an example of puffing up a standard with needless examples and other non-standards material, consider OOXML. Legitimately perhaps 1,500 pages of normative text. That's being generous. And that we could have reviewed fairly completely, made reasonable suggestions for corrections, had a real editorial cycle, etc. The point being there aren't any "free" cycles on standards. Yes, we can expand them to the point of being extended tutorials, while running the danger of being inconsistent with the normative text, but that is going to have consequences for editorial and proofing/approval cycles. Give me an editorial principle that is something other than whim and caprice of the editors or TC members on examples and I would be happy to hear about it.* Hope you are at the start of a great week! Patrick * I concede that unprincipled editing of standards is possible and that I have seen examples of the same. I persist in thinking that such approaches are inappropriate. (full stop) -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]