Re: [office-comment] <text:sequence> behaviour (ODF all versions)

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Alex Brown <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk> wrote:

> 6.4.13 has:
>
> ----b
> Once a sequence variable has been declared, it can be used in sequence
> fields throughout the document. Most sequence fields simply increment
> and display the sequence variable. However, sequence fields can also
> assume a new start value at any given position in a document. This start
> value is computed using a formula which is contained in the sequence
> field. If a sequence field without a start value is added, the office
> application software automatically inserts an expression of the type
> variable+1.
> ----e

Also, the only defined requirements keyword used in this passage is
"can." Under the incorporated ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 Annex H
definitions, "can" is used only to express possibilities, not
requirements, options, or recommendations. As written the passage is
only informational. It grants no permission and imposes no requirement
to implement the possibility.

Assuming an option or recommendation is intended, mandatory
requirements need to be added to specify application behavior when an
implementation that does not implement the option or recommendation
encounters relevant markup. ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, pg. 145.
(International standards are "to specify clearly and unambiguously the
conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the
interoperability. Complexity and the number of options should be kept
to a minimum[.]")

Finally, the passive voice clauses in the passage need to be be
rewritten in active voice using defined requirement keywords. ISO/IEC
Directives Part 2 section 4.3, pp. 10-11,
<http://www.iec.ch/tiss/iec/Directives-Part2-Ed5.pdf>:

"Uniformity of structure, of style and of terminology shall be
maintained not only within each document, but also within a series of
associated documents. ...

"Analogous wording *shall* be used to express analogous provisions;
identical wording shall be used to express identical provisions. The
same term *shall* be used throughout each document or series of
associated documents to designate a given concept. The use of an
alternative term (synonym) for a concept already defined *shall* be
avoided. As far as possible, only one meaning *shall* be attributed to
each term chosen.

"These requirements are particularly important not only to ensure
comprehension of the document, or of the series of associated
documents, but also to derive the maximum benefit available through
automated text processing techniques and computer-aided translation."

Best regards,

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux)


-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>