Re: [ubl] Comments to UBL V2.0 main specification (CS sanity check 4) by JPLSC

["Yukinori Saito" <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp>]

Dear Jon Bosak,
Thank you very much for your reply.
We (JPLSC) will discuss your comments at the next JPLSC F2F meeting.
Best Regards,
Yukinori Saito

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jon.bosak@sun.com>
To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: <kenichi.hayashi@mitsubishicorp.com>; <kunio_ohno@justsystem.co.jp>;
<kueno@iea.att.ne.jp>; <naitoh@is.oit.ac.jp>; <N.Itoh@otsuka-shokai.co.jp>
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: [ubl] Comments to UBL V2.0 main specification (CS sanity check
4) by JPLSC


[saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp:]

| (2) What is a policy for OASIS to publish specifications regarding
| style?  Will all specifications of OASIS change to DocBook
| stylesheets in future?

Probably not.  Most OASIS specifications are not big enough or
complicated enough to justify the effort.

| As you maybe know, ebXML specifications (ebMS, ebCPPA, and ebBP)
| are written by MS Word. And these specifications are well
| formatted. In case to print these specifications on paper, we get
| good layout printed specifications. I like these specification
| styles for users, because we only see or study these
| specifications.

The specifications you refer to are relatively small and consist
mostly or entirely of prose, so they are easy to put into a
printed form.  This is not true in the case of UBL.  For example,
it is difficult to imagine how the materials in the uml directory
could be presented in MS Word without destroying their
functionality.

Having said that, however, I'm certainly open to other approaches.
As I pointed out before, there is nothing to prevent the Japanese
translation from adopting a more usable format if you can discover
a way to create one.  I look forward to seeing the way that the
JPLSC solves this problem.

Best regards,

Jon