Re: [uoml-x-comment] Defects in PDF Version of UOML-1-v1.0

["allison shi" <allison_shi@sursen.com>]

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for helping us about this matter.

As I understand now, so far everything is in good shape, and we will wait
for Mary to tell us what we should do next, right?

Best rgds,
Yan Allison Shi




2008/9/7 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

> Hello Pine Zhang,
>
> 1. OpenOffice.org 2.4.x versions produce ODF 1.1.  That is correct.  The
> file that you attached is in acceptable ODF 1.1 format.
>
> Do not be concerned.  The OpenOffice.org 2.4.x builds do not appear to
> identify minor version in the <meta:generator> element.  The build numbers
> between the -en and the zh-CN version may also differ.  The conversion
> through the OpenOffice.org 2.4 version you have appears to be successful.
>
> 2. EXCELLENT!  I confirm that the file that you made with OO.o has a Table
> of Contents with no Duplicates.  The PDF that you attached also appears to
> be correct.
>
> 3. Review
>
> 3.1 The new table of contents also has the correct page numbers.
> Fortunately, the pagination of the document apart from the table of
> contents
> appears to be unchanged.
>
> 3.2 There is a font difference in the table of contents.  I am not certain
> that this is in the necessary OASIS template style.  I would not worry
> about
> that now.  It is accurate and usable.
>
> 3.3 I cannot speak for Mary.  It seems to me that the next steps are to
> review the content between the original ones that have been posted and the
> new one to make sure there are no differences apart from replacement of the
> table of contents.  Then Mary can decide how to replace the documents for
> review and how to make it known that there is a better copy available. I
> will provide any assistance that I can to have that go well.
>
> Thank you for repairing the documents.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: The uoml-x-comment list filters out .pdf files.  I have attached your
> new PDF here inside a .zip container.  I have also included the .odt inside
> of a .zip container so that the list archive will retain it with the
> correct
> file type extension.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pine Zhang [mailto:pine_zhang@sursen.com]
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uoml-x-comment/200809/msg00007.html
> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 03:29
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: UOML-X Comment; Mary McRae; allison shi
> Subject: Re: [uoml-x-comment] Defects in PDF Version of UOML-1-v1.0
>
>  Dear Dennis,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for your comments.
>
>
>
> 1. OpenOffice.org 2.4.1 version issue:
>
> I have downloaded the Openoffice.org 2.4.1 from
> http://zh.openoffice.org/new/zh_cn/downloads.html
> <http://zh.openoffice.org/new/zh_cn/downloads.html> , named "
> OOo_2.4.1rc2_20080529_Win32Intel_install_zh-CN.exe" . Opened the UOML
> specification and then saved the file again; After I unzip the odt
> document,
> find out the mata.xml, it describes :"
>
> xmlns:ooo="http://openoffice.org/2004/office"; office:version="1.1">
>
> <office:meta>
>
>  <meta:generator>OpenOffice.org/2.4$Win32
> OpenOffice.org_project/680m17$Build-9310</meta:generator> "
>
> I got confused about this as well. Please let me know how to create an odt
> file by Openoffice.org2.4.1 which can be identified as ODF 2.4.1.
>
>
>
>  2. Table of Content problems:
>
> I have  eliminated the duplicate by configuration of "Index edit" in the
> OpenOffice . There are .ODT, .PDF and .htm files of UOML CS generated,
> please have a check the attachment.
>
>
> [ ... ]
>