Re: [office-comment] The use of "should"in ODF 1.0 considered harmful

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Makoto,

MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
> According to Annex H of ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2,  "should" shall be
> used "to indicate that among several possibilities one is recommended
> as particularly suitable, without mentioning or excluding others, or
> that a certain course of action is preferred but not necessarily
> required, or that (in the negative form) a certain possibility or
> course of action is deprecated but not prohibited."  JIS has adopted 
> the same convention, and we always translate "should" (and "shall") 
> systematically.
>
> However, ODF 1.0 (ISO/IEC 26300) does not appear to follow this 
> well-established convention.  This is ok, since ODF 1.0 was not 
> required to follow ISO/IEC Directives Part 2.  However, ODF 1.2 
> will be treated differently.
>
>   
A clarification:

In ODF 1.0, only *bold* faced terms are used in the sense of Annex H. 
Are you suggesting that those usages are incorrect?

Do you have an example of where you think that usage is incorrect?

The reason I ask is that I am about to start creating concordances of 
versions of ODF 1.2 so we can validate the usage of terminology, 
conforming to Annex H being only one aspect of that check.

Hope you are at the start of a great week!

Patrick
> Cheers,
>
>   

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)