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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-formula message

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

Subject: Re: [office-formula] Proposal: Bolding NOT required for"shall"/"shall not"

I proposed modifying OpenFormula 1.2 so that it does NOT require
bolding for "shall", etc. to have their ISO meanings.

Michael Brauer suggested using a character style "ISO Keyword",
which is fine, but not inconsistent with my proposal.  He then said:
> Patrick may know that better thane me, but if I remember it correctly, 
> then the ISO directives require the bold formatting.

I'd certainly like to hear Patrick's perspective.  To clarify, though,
I propose to _keep_ the shalls (etc.) bolded.
Let's just not specifically say that "if they aren't bolded
they don't count".  If we fail to bold something, then it should be
a minor typographical flaw, not something that changes the meaning of
the spec!  And I _really_ don't want to put blind people in a position
where they have to check if text is bolded before they can use the text.

I looked at ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2,
"Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards"
(5th edition, 2004), annex H.  They list these: shall/shall not,
should/should not, may/need not, and can/cannot, and explain
their meaning.   _Nowhere_ in annex H, or anywhere else in part 2,
do they require bolding of shall/shall not, etc.

So, I propose leaving the keywords in a bold format, but NOT
requiring that they be bold for them to take effect.

--- David A. Wheeler

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