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] Glossary for 1.2

Title: Re: [office] Glossary for 1.2
The approach the SOA RM TC took was to only add definitions only:

  1. where there are multiple definitions or other ambiguities in the commons; OR
  2. where the specification uses the term in a context where its’ definition is different than as defined in the commons.


On 16/07/08 8:39 AM, "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

2008/7/16 Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>:
> Dave Pawson wrote:

>> Judge the clarity by viewing it as a new reader.
> If you read the JTC 1 Directives on standards you will find that standards
> are written presuming a great deal of knowledge on the part of the reader.

Not helpful, since it is too general to use.

> It is what makes them short enough to be useful (well, in some cases).
> Granted there is a school of tutorial style standards but I am not a member.

I'm with you there.
Equally I hate poor/no definitions in any standard.
Clarity is the goal.
I'm (reluctantly) following the W3C school of standards,
i.e. a standard is written for an implementer.
(Equally, I've pushed for the 'annotated specification'
so ordinary users can read it, but that should be a separate document)

>>> Personally I wouldn't define any XML terminology or anything that is
>>> commonly known in office markup circles.
>> "commonly known in office markup circles." ?
>>  No thanks. That's exclusive.
> And what is wrong with being "exclusive?" As I mentioned, I don't intend to
> define XML either. That is exclusive.
> Or is it only certain kinds of "exclusive" that bother you?

Clearly. We all have our own fields of knowledge.
I'm new to 'office markup circles'.
I'm not new to XML.

>If weight on "odd term." What is an "odd term" to you from an
> XSL-FO perspective might not be an "odd term" to me and vice versa.

It's called a balanced view. That's where a group of users comes in.
To produce that balance.

> The problem in this sort of discussion is that everyone (including me) has a
> set of examples in mind that they don't ever trot out. This is not an issue
> that can be settled in the abstract.

Not abstract, I'm referring to odf 1.2, hoping to improve clarity wrt 1.1

>  I wonder if we can use one of the mechanisms in ODF 1.2 to
> mark some term and its definition, in situ and then for the annotated
> version, have that automatically extracted and sorted into a definitions
> section?

If the definitions are in another document they won't be normative?
Wrong IMO

 That should be doable and other occurrences of that term could have
> automatic links generated to that definition.
(Easy if we had easy xml:id attributes :-)

> That would satisfy my concern that we distinguish between the standard and
> the handbook on the same subject.

I don't see a 'definitions' as ancilliary.


Dave Pawson

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
Duane's World TV Show - http://www.duanesworldtv.org/
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html

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