RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT ANDTOOLS

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Btw, I hear rumors over the years of something like a "Spec ML" for 
standards.  Anything ever come of that? 

-Rob

Robin Cover <robin@oasis-open.org> wrote on 02/10/2010 02:22:53 PM:

> 
> Subject:
> 
> RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT AND 
TOOLS
> 
> > The version approved as CD04 was approved with the ODF version as
> > authoritative.
> 
> I'm not sure whether I'm agreeing with Rob in this message, but here
> goes, FWIW:
> 
> [Dennis]
> > It is startling when I
> > see .doc files, especially as authoritative sources, from other TCs.
> 
> I don't understand the basis for the startlement: I would (and do)
> recommend that TCs designate the editable source as the authoritative
> format.  XML, HTML, DITA-format, ODF, Word, whatever.
> 
> If some TC uses Word as a word processor in document production,
> then the obvious format for "authoritative" reference (IMO)
> should be the original Word editable source -- not some
> secondary, derivative, possibly "corrupted" PDF, resulting
> from an approximate machine transform. Changes (viz., corruptions)
> introduced in (some) PDF generation transforms are widely
> attested. Not always, but too frequent for comfort.
> 
> So I have noted on several fora that the OASIS provision to
> allow production of derivative works *should* imply that
> the editable source be nominated as the authoritative
> format.  If not, then someone wanting to create a
> derivative work would potentially have to start work from
> a PDF -- transforming that "authoritative" PDF back into
> some useful editable format, for re-use in an editing
> framework suitable for creating derivative works. And the
> PDF-to-editable-text transform is known to be hazardous, at best,
> often leading to predictable classes of corruptions. It
> would not be safe to begin work with the original editable
> format if the PDF is authoritative, because changes in the
> PDF not detected (initially) by human inspection would
> lead to a derivative work based upon a non-authoritative
> document.
> 
> Declaring the secondary generated PDF to be authoritative
> seems to me quite questionable if fidelity to the author's
> or editor's intent (in the editable source) is important.
> 
> So I would recommend, if asked, that the TC use ODF as
> the authoritative format.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> -rcc
> 
> Robin Cover
> OASIS, Director of Information Services
> Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink
> Email: robin@oasis-open.org
> Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover
> Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/
> Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html
> Tel: +1 972-296-1783
> 
> -- 
> 
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> > The version approved as CD04 was approved with the ODF version as
> > authoritative.
> >
> > Of course, we are free to make a different choice if/when we make a 
post
> > public review revision.
> >
> > And remember, just because there are known bugs in the ODF rendering 
does
> > not mean that there are not also bugs in the HTML or PDF exports. I've
> > certainly seen my share of those.  I'll take an obvious but benign
> > rendering error over a subtle but pernicious one any day.
> >
> > -Rob
> 
> 
> Robin Cover
> OASIS, Director of Information Services
> Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink
> Email: robin@oasis-open.org
> Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover
> Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/
> Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html
> Tel: +1 972-296-1783
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 02/10/2010
> > 01:19:07 PM:
> >>
> >> Subject:
> >>
> >> RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT 
AND
> > TOOLS
> >>
> >> This is a work-process issue.  We have no agreement on what version 
and
> >> specific tool we share in common in order to be able to produce and 
work
> > on
> >> (authoritative) documents of the OIC TC, and ones the TC 
Administrator
> > can
> >> manipulate in order to produce the OASIS Standard version (if she is 
the
> > one
> >> who needs to be able to do that).
> >>
> >> It is an interoperability issue for ourselves in our own work.
> >>
> >> I notice that the proposed solution to the immediate issue involves
> >> proposing that a specific product release be used with, I suppose, a
> > prayer
> >> that the builds for different platforms don't have interop problems 
too.
> >>
> >> So, when we go to Public Review, how do we deal with this?  That we
> > identify
> >> the document as one supported by a specific product version?
> >>
> >> I recommend that we avoid this by making the PDF be the authoritative
> >> version.  Whatever fears there are of an unfaithful PDF result, I 
think
> > the
> >> odds of successful consumption by reviewers and user are clearly 
better
> > than
> >> what we are dealing with as a certainty.  Also, the PDFs that are
> > relatively
> >> small, easy to review, and for the State of Interoperability, we have 
no
> >> concern about some normative text being corrupted in the PDF.
> >>
> >>  - Dennis
> >>
> >> PS: Rob quipped that a committee can use any document format it 
wants,
> > even
> >> Microsoft Word .doc.  If I'd been on my toes, I would have offered to
> > second
> >> that were it to be made as a motion.  (It would be ironic if the ODF
> > exports
> >> to .doc were more reliable than what we are seeing in ODF 
interchange.)
> >>     I am now accustomed to OASIS TCs that use ODF.  It is startling 
when
> > I
> >> see .doc files, especially as authoritative sources, from other TCs. 
I
> > want
> >> us to have a reliable way to use ODF Text documents on the OIC TC. It
> > is an
> >> obvious dog-food issue.  What can we do to achieve that successfully?
> >>
> >> PPS: Out of curiosity, I noticed that CD03 itself was identified with
> >> office:version="1.2" and
> >> <meta:generator>OOo-dev/3.2$Win32
> >> OpenOffice.org_project/320m6$Build-9459</meta:generator>.  This opens
> > just
> >> fine in OpenOffice.org 3.0.1 and (after ignoring the warning)
> > OpenOffice.org
> >> 2.4.1.
> >>
> >> PPPS: Since this is not about producing reports about specific 
products
> > but
> >> figuring out a way to use an interoperable set of tools for our own
> > document
> >> production, I tried Windows 7 WordPad on cd03.  It doesn't handle
> > numbers on
> >> the headings and doesn't handle ToCs.  On the other hand, Word 2007 
SP2
> >> opens all three of CD03, CD03-wd01 and CD03-wd02 and shows the ToC 
and
> >> in-body headings correctly EXCEPT that, for all three documents, the
> >> level-two headings all have page breaks in front of them and, with 
wd02
> >> only, the Section numbering starts over at 1 with the Conclusions
> > section.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Hanssens Bart [mailto:Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 08:30
> >> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; oic@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> Cc: Rob Weir
> >> Subject: RE: [oic] Groups - state-of-interop-cd-03-wd02.odt uploaded 
-
> >> NUMBERING
> >>
> >> Well, we actually shouldn't comment on implementations per charter, 
but
> > I
> >> guess it's related to
> >>
> >> http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=106218
> >>
> >> Should be fixed when opening in 3.2 and resaving again, I'll do that
> > when
> >> updating to cd4.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bart
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:58 PM
> >> To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> Cc: Hanssens Bart; Rob Weir
> >> Subject: RE: [oic] Groups - state-of-interop-cd-03-wd02.odt uploaded 
-
> >> NUMBERING
> >>
> >> OK, I didn't look closely enough.
> >>
> >> When I opened this document in OpenOffice 3.0.1, I did see the TOC 
with
> >> proper subsections, and I saw section numbers on the headings in the
> > body of
> >> the document.
> >>
> >> However, numbering is not maintained properly in the body.  There are
> >> several section 0.1, for example.
> >>
> >> E.g., 2.2 is numbered 0.1, 2.3 is numbered 0.1 also, section 3 is 
number
> > as
> >> section 1, 3.2 is numbered 0.1, section 4 is numbered as section 1, 
etc.
> >>
> >> SO, I tried the OpenOffice 2.4.1, Sun Distribution.
> >>
> >> It has the TOC right and it has the subsections being in the same
> > section.
> >> But the subsections are all numbered *.1.  That is, Section 4 has two
> >> subsections each numbered 4.1.
> >>
> >> FINALLY, I opened the package in WinZip and confirmed that
> >> <office:document-content> office:version="1.1".  And also, in 
meta.xml,
> >> <meta:generator>OpenOffice.org/3.1$Unix
> >> OpenOffice.org_project/310m19$Build-9420</meta:generator>
> >>
> >> Yes, I would say that this is a big deal for the State of
> > Interoperability.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: bart.hanssens@fedict.be [mailto:bart.hanssens@fedict.be]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 07:02
> >> To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> Subject: [oic] Groups - state-of-interop-cd-03-wd02.odt uploaded
> >>
> >> The document revision named state-of-interop-cd-03-wd02.odt has been
> >> submitted by Mr. Bart Hanssens to the OASIS Open Document Format
> >> Interoperability and Conformance (OIC) TC document repository.  This
> >> document is revision #1 of state-of-interop-cd-03-wd01.odt.
> >>
> >> Document Description:
> >>
> >>
> >> View Document Details:
> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=36343
> >>
> >> Download Document:
> >>
> > 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/36343/state-of-interop-cd-

> >
> >> 03-wd02.odt
> >>
> >> Revision:
> >> This document is revision #1 of state-of-interop-cd-03-wd01.odt.  The
> >> document details page referenced above will show the complete 
revision
> >> history.
> >>
> >>
> >> PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email
> > application
> >> may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy 
and
> > paste
> >> the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
> >>
> >> -OASIS Open Administration
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> >> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> >> 
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>