[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Restoring examples in OpenFormula spec
Mary, I find it amazing that you cite the one example of a "standard" that I would use as an example of what I would like to see done. The Goldfarb handbook is precisely the sort of thing that I would like to see done with ODF. Yes, fine, we won't call the version with examples, code, etc. a "standard." We will call it "The ODF Missal" or some such and say that it includes parts of the ODF standard. The "standard" parts are no less parts of a standard because they are decorated with non-normative material. That is in line with your example. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick Mary McRae wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I think it's important to realize that one set of files will become an OASIS > Standard. That set of files must not have "hidden content" in the underlying XML > as it would be impossible to determine exactly what makes up the standard > itself. Hidden content would not have been subject to public review unless the > reviewer knew how to access it. > > There can be only one Standard. Creating a separate document set and calling > it "expanded" would not be allowed. It would have to have a different name, and > in order to have any official standing would be subject to the same review > process as any other TC document. > > The TC *could* create separate documents containing examples that can be > linked back to the specification, but if you want to produce a version of the > standard that contains all of the examples, etc. then that needs to be the > version that goes out for member review and is voted upon. > > <personalOpinion> > Personally, I would rather see a large document set (which could be split into > multiple parts) with examples, sample code, etc. inline rather than a separate > document that requires me to cross-reference between two or more > files/documents. I also think that a specification with examples is easier to > review/understand. I've never read ISO 8879 but I constantly referred to > Goldfarb.</personalOpinion> > > Regards, > > Mary > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] >> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 8:44 AM >> To: dwheeler@dwheeler.com >> Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: Re: [office] Restoring examples in OpenFormula spec >> >> David, >> >> Cutting to the part where we still differ: >> >> David A. Wheeler wrote: >> <snip> >> >>>> So, what about a non-normative version with the examples and other >>>> materials? That would allow not only some examples but as many as you >>>> care to insert. >>>> >>>> >>> I think we SHOULD have a non-normative version with lots of detailed >>> rationale, etc. But examples are so helpful in understanding material >>> >> that >> >>> I'd prefer to re-insert examples of each function, right next >>> to their definitions, in even the short version. A spec that is >>> >> accurate, >> >>> but hard to understand, is less likely to be useful to its readers >>> than a spec that is both accurate >>> AND easy to understand. Examples help with the latter. >>> >>> >>> >> This is where I disagree, not that examples aren't helpful but that they >> are necessary in the normative text. There may be a very limited number >> of cases and the directives so concede where examples may be necessary. >> >> HOWEVER, it is clear from your response that you are taking this as an >> opportunity to insist on having examples for every function. I really >> don't think anyone needs an example of the "+" function, for example. Or >> a large number of others, assuming that we do our job correctly as a >> committee and write really good prose and/or notation. >> >> There are parts of the graphics section in ODF that are at least as >> difficult to explain in prose as any of your functions. Should we take >> that to mean that we should have a graphic illustration of every aspect >> of graphics or charts? >> >> The point being that we could easily see a 1,500 to 2,000 page ODF >> standard that is mostly *non-normative* examples. >> >> Besides, examples are really a very small part of what would really be >> helpful. >> >> If you really wanted to be helpful why not include code from one or more >> project that implement these functions and capabilities in the standard? >> That would certainly be more helpful than any examples that you want to >> include with the functions. You could actually use the code in an ODF >> application. >> >> Make no mistake, I agree that examples are useful. I simply want them to >> be useful somewhere away from the normative version of the standard. >> >>>> We keep telling people about the advantages of markup for their >>>> documents. How about displaying just a bit of that for one of our own? >>>> >>>> >>> Sounds good, but I keep getting told that we can't submit dynamic >>> >> documents to ISO. >> >>> OpenDocument can support them, and the OpenFormula spec ALREADY has >>> >> hidden sections >> >>> (for the various rationales, etc.). We haven't worked as much on the >>> >> hidden parts; >> >>> I was specifically told that we had to remove all that material >>> >> (automatically) >> >>> before even sending it to ISO. >>> >>> Instead of trying to fight the whole mindset about dynamic documents, >>> >> it'd be >> >>> easier to just include the examples. Then the _primary_ thing that >>> >> people would >> >>> "add" would already be there. >>> >>> >>> >> Sigh, this has nothing to do with or without a mindset against dynamic >> documents. >> >> What I am proposing is that we create a static, normative ODF standard >> that has no examples, no working code from open source projects, no XSLT >> stylesheets, no small applications, no case studies, included with the >> normative text. >> >> At the same time, we can have at the OASIS site, either multiple static >> expanded versions of the ODF standard that add whatever you would like >> to see in a *expanded* version of the standard, such as examples, >> working code, XSLT stylesheets, small applications, case studies, etc., >> right along with the normative text. Or if OASIS would host the >> technology, we could produce those versions on the fly. >> >> What part of that is so hard to understand? >> >> One, the normative one, is a reasonable sized standard. >> >> The others (note the plural) are just as reasonable (although not in >> size) but they are *not* limited to the normative text of the standard. >> >> My point being that unlike before, we don't simply have to chose one or >> the other. We can have a normative text that can be read in a reasonable >> finite amount of time and yet have other versions that are better for >> other purposes. >> >> Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! >> >> Patrick >> >> >> >>> --- David A. Wheeler >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in >>> >> OASIS >> >>> at: >>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Patrick Durusau >> patrick@durusau.net >> 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) >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in >> OASIS >> at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> > > > -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net 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]