[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] style name uniquness
David, David Faure wrote: > On Monday 04 February 2008, David Faure wrote: > >> I know the difference between the two sentences (the one you added is about >> other office:styles elements in other xml files), but I think it should be said in >> a clearer way. Maybe "... <office:styles> elements of the same document, >> including those from other xml files in the package" -- or whatever the right >> terms are for those things in the specification :) >> > > I found mention of "subdocuments" in section 2.1, this might be a good way of naming > the multiple xml files that represent a single document inside the package? > > We would then say: > > "It is recommended that applications do not generate names that are > used already for styles with the given family contained in the <office:styles> > elements of other subdocuments of the same document." > with a link to "2.1 Document Roots" > > But indeed we have to make sure that people don't read "subdocuments" > as "embedded documents" since this is definitely not what is meant here. > Should we start adding a glossary? > > Well,...., actually there are two schools of thought on the glossary idea. ;-) While "terms and definitions" are quite common in ISO standards (it is even a named part in the Directives), it is not in fact required. The biggest difficulty with having "terms and definitions" is that they are difficult to define in the absence of a lot of other things that are going to be said in the standard. On the other hand, in all fairness, reading a standard can often be made easier if there is a "terms and definitions" section, at least if it is limited to things that are not customary for that area. For example, I would not want to define "attribute," "boolean," "element," "schema," etc. Personally I prefer the method of defining terms when they are used (the first one) but fully recognize that good standards are written using the second method. It is really a matter of preference and while I will express my preference for the former, should the TC decide that the later is to be preferred, I have no problem with adapting to that style. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick -- 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]