[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: HTML versions of CD-04
Heavens, no! In general, there's three different toolsets people use to create specifications: a) word processing applications (for which MS Word and OpenOffice templates are provided) b) XML vocabularies such as DITA and DocBook c) HTML Now I have to go back and re-read your original message -- I *thought* what you had said was that you were starting with the HTML template in OO - using OO as an HTML editor. After re-reading that's not what you were talking about at all so I'm going to take my fingers off the keyboard now because clearly my brain is frazzled. m > -----Original Message----- > From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:13 PM > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org > Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: HTML versions of CD-04 > > I'm not using the HTML templates as the WS-RX editors > sub-committee uses OpenDocument. You're not suggesting that > we produce HTML or XHTML by manually copying our > specification text from the current .odt files, are you? > > - gp > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:30 AM > > To: Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > Cc: 'Mary McRae' > > Subject: [ws-rx-editors] RE: HTML versions of CD-04 > > > > Hi Gil, > > > > The HTML templates are intended to be used in an HTML > editor, such > > as XMetaL, rather than a word processing application. There are > > several TCs that actually author in HTML or XHTML. My guess is that > > you'd get odd behavior from following the same steps in MS Word. As > > the person who checks such things, I expect that any TC > authoring in > > an office suite application would generate the HTML by using the > > built-in utilities. No comments about the quality of HTML > produced by > > any of these applications are necessary :-) > > > > Mary > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:20 PM > > > To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Cc: Mary McRae > > > Subject: HTML versions of CD-04 > > > > > > So here's a fun little experiment: > > > > > > 1.) Go to http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates and > download "OASIS > > > Specification Template v2-0.ott". > > > > > > 2.) From your desktop open the above template (this assumes > > you have > > > OO 2.0 installed). This will create a new .odt document with > > > appropriate boiler-plate etc. Scroll to the bottom of the > > document and > > > notice how the appendix section titles are in 18-point, > bold, blue > > > Arial with the word "Appendix" pre-pended. > > > > > > 3.) Save this new document as HTML (for best results > > configure OO to > > > render to HTML 3.2). > > > > > > 4.) Open the resulting HTML document with a browser and > > scroll to the > > > bottom of the document. Notice how the appendix section > > numbers are in > > > a normal-looking (not large, not bold, > > > black) font without the word "Appendix". > > > > > > I've attached a copy of the HTML that is generated from the above > > > process. > > > > > > I'm not saying that OASIS is responsible for OO's bugs. On > > the other > > > hand, if we are going to be required to produce HTML, it would be > > > helpful if the templates that we are provided with produced > > documents > > > that rendered properly to HTML. > > > > > > - gp > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]