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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-comment message

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

Subject: Re: [office-comment] 8.5.4 of ODF 1.0


MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
> Although this clause is almost understandable, 
> some examples would be very useful.
OK, here is my standard question on request for more examples:

Tell me how to distinguish in some principled way from your request from 
a similar request for someone who wants examples for any other part of 
the standard?

In other words, as a standard editor (as opposed to a "handbook" or 
"FAQ" editor), how do I distinguish what elements or attributes merit 
examples and which ones don't?

Remember that I have to be consistent in the application of that 
principle. I may be as comfortable with Bessel functions as addition so 
why would I have examples for the former and not the latter?

I have inserted markers in the text that should allow us to easily 
create an "annotated" version of ODF 1.2 that has as many and as varied 
a set of examples, supplemental readings, etc., as anyone's heart could 
desire. But, TC members nor NBs would need to concern themselves with 
the "annotations" in terms of proofing and/or approving the standard.

If you need an example of puffing up a standard with needless examples 
and other non-standards material, consider OOXML. Legitimately perhaps 
1,500 pages of normative text. That's being generous. And that we could 
have reviewed fairly completely, made reasonable suggestions for 
corrections, had a real editorial cycle, etc. The point being there 
aren't any "free" cycles on standards. Yes, we can expand them to the 
point of being extended tutorials, while running the danger of being 
inconsistent with the normative text, but that is going to have 
consequences for editorial and proofing/approval cycles.

Give me an editorial principle that is something other than whim and 
caprice of the editors or TC members on examples and I would be happy to 
hear about it.*

Hope you are at the start of a great week!


* I concede that unprincipled editing of standards is possible and that 
I have seen examples of the same. I persist in thinking that such 
approaches are inappropriate. (full stop)

Patrick Durusau
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)

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