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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

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

Subject: Re: [office] 5.3.1 Note Element


I think the steps you have taken are the best we can do to reduce the 
likelihood of confusion.

Should get back to proofing late today.

Hope you are having a great day!


Michael Brauer wrote:
> Patrick,
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> 5.3.1 Note Element (second paragraph) reads:
>>> Open Office XML represents notes in a similar fashion to footnotes in
>>> XSL. In XSL, the first child of the note element contains the citation
>>> in the form of an <fo:inline> element. Open Office XML uses the same
>>> structure but introduces a <text:note-citation> element. The second
>>> child contains the note body, just as in XSL.
>> Confused when I first read this paragraph. Since XSL divided into XSLT 
>> and XSL:FO, would it be clearer to substitute XSL:FO? Granted that I 
>> think the language is technically correct, just not sure that it won't 
>> cause confusion.
> I agree that it is a little but confusing that the former XSL has been 
> divided into XSLT and XSL-FO first, and XSL-FO has been renamed to XSL 
> later. However, the current specification is called "XSL" and FO or 
> "formatting objects" even does not appear in its title. So, from my 
> point of view, it might also be confusing to use XSL-FO for people that 
> don't know the history of XSL. So "XSL" seems to be the correct term, 
> even if it might be confusing.
> Anyway, the sepcifiaction sometimes refered to XSL (FO) as XSL, and 
> sometimes as XSL-FO, and the bibliography entry was called [xsl-fo], 
> too. This in fact is confusing and inconsistent. For reason, I've 
> renamed the the bibliography entry to [XSL] and the term "XSL-FO" to 
> "XSL". Whenever "XSL" occured first in a section, I've replaced it with 
> the bibliography entry "[XSL]", so that it becomes clear that we are 
> refering to XSL and not to XSLT at least after heaving a look at the 
> bibliography index.
> At the same time I've found to places there we refered to XSLT as XSL: 
> One was in section 6.7.8 were we refer to XSLT number formats, the other 
>  in section 14 were had "CSS or XSL stylesheets".
> Does that work for you?
> Michael

Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!

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