Re: [office] Glossary for 1.2

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Dave,

Dave Pawson wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>:
>
>   
<snip>
>> That is I agree that terms should be defined but those definitions should
>> occur in context and not in a list divorced from that context.
>>     
>
>
> Due to the length of the document I disagree.
> Searching for a term is horrible and wastes time in the current standard.
>
>   
Ok but is this another "judgment" call as to how familiar the reader 
should be with the subject matter of the standard?

Personally I wouldn't define any XML terminology or anything that is 
commonly known in office markup circles.

I suppose something like "metadata manifest" which will appear for the 
first time in ODF 1.2 merits a definition but that is one I would put in 
context since you are unlikely to encounter it in other parts of the 
standard.

Do note that we are generating extensive cross-references for elements 
and attributes and it would be quite easy to do the same for "special" 
terms. But I suspect it would be very limited set of terms. (I do agree 
that terms of art from other standards, graphics are a good example, 
should be defined by reference to the appropriate standards.)

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
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)