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] style name uniquness


David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 04 February 2008, David Faure wrote:
>> I know the difference between the two sentences (the one you added is about
>> other office:styles elements in other xml files), but I think it should be said in
>> a clearer way. Maybe "... <office:styles> elements of the same document,
>> including those from other xml files in the package" -- or whatever the right
>> terms are for those things in the specification :)
> I found mention of "subdocuments" in section 2.1, this might be a good way of naming
> the multiple xml files that represent a single document inside the package?
> We would then say:
> "It is recommended that applications do not generate names that are 
> used already for styles with the given family contained in the <office:styles>
> elements of other subdocuments of the same document."
> with a link to "2.1 Document Roots"
> But indeed we have to make sure that people don't read "subdocuments"
> as "embedded documents" since this is definitely not what is meant here.
> Should we start adding a glossary?
Well,...., actually there are two schools of thought on the glossary 
idea. ;-)

While "terms and definitions" are quite common in ISO standards (it is 
even a named part in the Directives), it is not in fact required.

The biggest difficulty with having "terms and definitions" is that they 
are difficult to define in the absence of a lot of other things that are 
going to be said in the standard.

On the other hand, in all fairness, reading a standard can often be made 
easier if there is a "terms and definitions" section, at least if it is 
limited to things that are not customary for that area. For example, I 
would not want to define "attribute," "boolean," "element," "schema," etc.

Personally I prefer the method of defining terms when they are used (the 
first one) but fully recognize that good standards are written using the 
second method.

It is really a matter of preference and while I will express my 
preference for the former, should the TC decide that the later is to be 
preferred, I have no problem with adapting to that style.

Hope you are having a great day!


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]