[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT AND TOOLS
My startlement is that I don't see ODF Text documents used more, though I fully understand the tendency to use the binary forms of Microsoft Word as a common authoring form. I have been in ODF-focused activities enough lately that seeing other formats shows up as odd and I have to remind myself that's not odd after all. (I need to get out more.) I think the ODF authoring format is valuable to have available, especially for use in creation of derivative works (possibly by scraping the XML or conversion into another format). This does not strike me as the main purpose of the specification, and, fortunately, we confer no authority on derivatives and can sleep easily about that. However, I am concerned that although an original author will see their intentions realized when they look at documents they write in the same product version they used to author with, there are these too-prevalent situations where that intention is not conveyed to others because of interchange interoperability problems. This is even funnier in a Public Review situation, since comments about problems in appearance will not be reproducible by those using the original tool. For final form formats, we at least have a way of holding the thing steady while we wring its neck. This kind of system-level incoherence reminds me of the past problems about HTML e-mail rendering where the recipient doesn't see what the sender does but can't demonstrate it to the sender (unless power-user enough to send screen shots). For the short documents (under 25 pages) we are talking about here on the OIC TC, I hereby offer to provide the meticulous proof-reading of PDFs required to ensure their fidelity to the authored form (as well as I can tell what that form is), and to derive such a PDF if others haven't found a toolset that does the job adequately. - Dennis PS: Since we are willing to deliver to ISO/IEC the PDFs they ask for or are willing to make, I am puzzled that we find PDF creation so unspeakably untrustworthy. -----Original Message----- From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:23 To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Cc: oic@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT AND TOOLS [ ... ] 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. [ ... ] 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. [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]