[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-comment] <text:sequence> behaviour (ODF all versions)
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Alex Brown <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk> wrote: > 6.4.13 has: > > ----b > Once a sequence variable has been declared, it can be used in sequence > fields throughout the document. Most sequence fields simply increment > and display the sequence variable. However, sequence fields can also > assume a new start value at any given position in a document. This start > value is computed using a formula which is contained in the sequence > field. If a sequence field without a start value is added, the office > application software automatically inserts an expression of the type > variable+1. > ----e Also, the only defined requirements keyword used in this passage is "can." Under the incorporated ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 Annex H definitions, "can" is used only to express possibilities, not requirements, options, or recommendations. As written the passage is only informational. It grants no permission and imposes no requirement to implement the possibility. Assuming an option or recommendation is intended, mandatory requirements need to be added to specify application behavior when an implementation that does not implement the option or recommendation encounters relevant markup. ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, pg. 145. (International standards are "to specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability. Complexity and the number of options should be kept to a minimum[.]") Finally, the passive voice clauses in the passage need to be be rewritten in active voice using defined requirement keywords. ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 section 4.3, pp. 10-11, <http://www.iec.ch/tiss/iec/Directives-Part2-Ed5.pdf>: "Uniformity of structure, of style and of terminology shall be maintained not only within each document, but also within a series of associated documents. ... "Analogous wording *shall* be used to express analogous provisions; identical wording shall be used to express identical provisions. The same term *shall* be used throughout each document or series of associated documents to designate a given concept. The use of an alternative term (synonym) for a concept already defined *shall* be avoided. As far as possible, only one meaning *shall* be attributed to each term chosen. "These requirements are particularly important not only to ensure comprehension of the document, or of the series of associated documents, but also to derive the maximum benefit available through automated text processing techniques and computer-aided translation." Best regards, Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux) -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]