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: ODF 1.2 References

I've completed my initial analysis of the external references used in the 
ODF 1.2 CDl, Appendix B.  Details are in this document:


In general I found the following issues:

1) ISO Directives, Part 2, calls for the following text to introduce the 
list of references:

"The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application 
of this
document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For 
undated references,
the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) 

We're missing that text.

Also, as that text states, this is a list of "indispensable" references. 
We have a number of items in the list which are informative only, such as 
the reference to the book "Inside OLE", as well as several others.  I 
think we want the references clause to include only the "indispensable" 
references, those that are used normatively.

2) Especially with W3C Recommendations, we're inconsistent in whether we 
specify a fixed-version URL, or a URL that points to the current version 
of the standard, which will vary over time.  In many cases this has 
brought inconsistency to our citations, such that we have a URL that now 
points to a 2006 REC, while our citation indicates a 1999 year. 

3) The bibliographic style of citations is inconsistent.  In some cases we 
are giving FName LName, in other cases FInitial LName.  In several 
standards there are many authors.  In some cases we have listed 6 
different authors, but in other cases we have just said "W3C".  We should 
adopt some consistent approach.  I rewrote some of the examples in MLA 
format, which calls for items with more than 3 authors to list the first 
one only, followed by "et al.".

4) In some cases there are ISO or ISO/IEC versions of a standard in 
addition to a W3C version.  We generally should cite the ISO version. 
However, in some cases the ISO version is not freely available, so not 
only can we not verify that it is the same as the W3C version, open source 
implementors would not be able to obtain the text freely.  So we'll need 
to handle these on a case-by-case basis.

5) I corrected a few minor typos and one misspelling in an author's name.

6) Of course, many of these standards have been updated.  We'll should see 
if there is a consistent set up changes we can make.  In particular, we're 
citing XML 1.0 (Third Edition).  If, hypothetically, we move to the 
current Fifth Edition, this will likely trigger a change in our Unicode 
citation.  We need to see if there are other such internal dependencies 
such that a change in one reference breaks another.

(I'm cc'ing the comment list for this, since I know there are a few SC34 
guys lurking on that list who might have some input on some specifics of 
the document I uploaded.)

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