RE: [cti] Suggested formatting for normative text

It’s hard to determine what was agreed to by reading those doc comments – I guess my interpretation was off J

What you state below seems to be closer to what is mostly currently in the docs – so that’s fine with me.

From: Wunder, John A.
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:48 PM
To: Piazza, Rich <rpiazza@mitre.org>; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti] Suggested formatting for normative text

Hm, I would not have said these same things. We had a short discussion in the doc comments earlier, my assumption was:

· Type names are all lowercase, using dashes, e.g. “attack-pattern”. These type names, when used in JSON, appear exactly the same.

· Property names are all lowercase, using underscores, e.g. “created_by_ref”

· String enum values, e.g. relationship value/nature, are lowercase using dashes, e.g. “has-source"

From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Rich Piazza <rpiazza@mitre.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 2:41 PM
To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti] Suggested formatting for normative text

As we start writing normative text in Google docs we should agree about some basic rules for formatting and naming, so we don’t have to fix it later (coming from someone who had to do that to 15 STIX documents and 94 CybOX documents….).

Here are is what we are currently doing for formatting:

· Use Arial/11pt for basic text.

· Use the provided header styles

· Use Consolas/11pt for JSON examples (color: RGB(199, 37, 78)) with background (color: RGB(249, 242, 244))

· Property names in bold

For naming, we haven’t been consistent… here is a list of proposed rules

· Type names do not have the “Type” suffix

· Type names are camel case

· Property names are all lower case, using dashes, not underscores.

Should type names and property names be in a special font and/or color? Currently it is the same as the JSON examples.

Comments?

cti message