OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [cti] Suggested formatting for normative text


Can I suggest that for those of us that really care about formatting and style of text in the drafts (not the content of the drafts), get on a phone call where we can talk through it?  


Thanks,

Bret



Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg." 

On Feb 11, 2016, at 08:35, Piazza, Rich <rpiazza@MITRE.ORG> wrote:

Do you mean Type names in bold courier”.  I think all language terms should be in the same font.
 
I don’t know if you noticed, but in the google docs all of the field names are in bold L
 
BTW – I made this comment in one of the docs related to this line:
 
marking_refs field (of type marking-refs)
 
From the STIX 1.2 spec - there were many types and properties that had the same name - except type names had the "Type" suffix. I don't want to go back to that - but maybe camel case is better. These look the same. I know we can use different colors/fonts in the documents, but otherwise, I think it is going to be confusing – like in an email.
 
From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Kirillov, Ivan A.
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:02 AM
To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti] Suggested formatting for normative text
 
I agree as well. How about:
·         Field names in courier
·         Type names in bold
·         String literals in italics
 
-Ivan
 
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Sean Barnum <sbarnum@mitre.org>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:42 AM
To: John Wunder <jwunder@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Suggested formatting for normative text
 
>I would actually like to distinguish them more, to be honest, at least in the spec. As it is, it’s very hard to tell the difference between a field name and a type name. My preference would be to keep our current structure for naming but use a different >formatting rule for type names, field names, and string literals.
 
+1
 
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of John Wunder <jwunder@mitre.org>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 8:46 AM
To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Suggested formatting for normative text
 
If we pick one, we shouldn’t use dashes, which are not valid characters in many programming language variables (hence why field names are underscores).
 
I would actually like to distinguish them more, to be honest, at least in the spec. As it is, it’s very hard to tell the difference between a field name and a type name. My preference would be to keep our current structure for naming but use a different formatting rule for type names, field names, and string literals.
 
From: Mark Davidson <mdavidson@soltra.com>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:53 AM
To: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>, Rich Piazza <rpiazza@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Suggested formatting for normative text
 
·         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”
 
Is there a reason why everything couldn’t just be the same? Remembering the names of all the things in STIX/TAXII is hard enough, I’d rather not add a thing to remember if we don’t have to. My vote would be for all lowercase, all dashes.
 
Thank you.
-Mark
 
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 2:48 PM
To: "Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.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?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]