Re: Forensics: Working with the ODF 1.1 ODT version

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Dennis,

Your statement below:

> As discussed on today's call, this is not a material problem for creating an Errata 01 so long as we don't continue the practice of the ODF 1.0 Errata 01 of using page and line numbers.  I agree, we can provide errata item description in a way that do not require page and line references, and I had intended to do it that way.

Captures all we need to do, at least as far as the errata.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

PS: The presentation "bug" you have discovered between implementations 
points, at least to me, to the need for more specifics with regard to 
page and layout models. So that users can rely upon getting the same 
layout despite different engines or applications.

At a much cruder level, the same way that basic SVG rendering is the 
same no matter which SVG engine you use, at least for basic SVG.

Personally I think that level of "interoperable" display is what users 
are going to interpret as interoperability to no small degree.


On 3/28/2011 12:52 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I have had an unexpected glitch in my wanting to start from the editable ODF Text version of the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard.  The versions of ODF consumers that I have do not match the pagination that is shown in the PDF of the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard.  The difference is substantial.  The ODF consumers I have used all end up with fewer pages (719 pages in OO.o 2.4.1, 720 pages in OO.o 3.2.0, 718 pages in LibreOffice 3.3.2) instead of 738 pages in the PDFand it appears to be related to how automatic page breaks are done.
>
> The screen capture illustrates the 1-page difference between OO.o 2.4.1 and LOffice 3.3.2.  In 2.4.1, section 9 is one page longer.  The creeping that ends up with one extra page begins in section 9.9 in the page break just before the Event Effect subsection.  (OO.o 3.2.0 on a different machine has the break still different.)  There may have been other differences in page breaks before this, but none of them changed the table of contents page numbers for any of the indexed headings.
>
> As discussed on today's call, this is not a material problem for creating an Errata 01 so long as we don't continue the practice of the ODF 1.0 Errata 01 of using page and line numbers.  I agree, we can provide errata item description in a way that do not require page and line references, and I had intended to do it that way.
>
> However, the problem with pagination differences is that I am then left to wonder what else is being done differently.  For that reason, I would much prefer to use some sort of style or other adjustments to have a pagination that is preserved in interchange among ODF consumers and that leads to a matching PDF.
>
> In fact, in examining shorter pagination in a current ODF consumer, I saw that some table breaks were being presented incorrectly.  This is apparently a bug in some consumers and I need to work around it.  (And this is why it is important to understand what the pagination differences are all symptoms of and finding some way to mitigate them.)
>
>   - Dennis
>
> PS: Here are details of the bug as something to watch out for when working on ODF TC specifications.  I am not sure how to report it and to whom, but here are the symptoms:
>
>   1. A table is split between two pages.  The table is styled so that table rows are not themselves split, and headings are also preserved on continuation pages.
>
>   2. Sometimes, the table is split such that the last table row before the split appears to have disappeared.
>
>   3. Apparently the last row retained before the split is there, but it extends below the page body frame such that it is not visible.  In the case I observed, none of the clipped row was visible at all, but it was observable that the top of another row was there (because the vertical border lines of the table could be seen extending below the last-visible row).
>
>   4. That's probably enough to figure out what the edge case is.  Of course, this bug is hard to report unless I capture a screen shot or a PDF fragment that shows the incorrect presentation.  If I see any of those again I will capture screen shots.
>
>   5. There are other differences in how schema fragments are split across pages.  They can be cured by heavy-handed forcing of breaks but not by anything I've been able to do by adjusting styling or page parameters (footer distance for example).  (I notice that the jitter between schema fragment lines is also present but not always exactly the same compare do the original.)
>
>   6. Just to demonstrate that I am not picking on the OO.o code base alone, I also opened the ODF 1.1 standard in Microsoft Office 2010 Word and got an even shorter document, although updating the table of contents makes it almost match the PDF in terms of the last page number, but only because the TOC blew up to where it ended on page 60 of 739.  The Office 2010 version is not useable for my purposes because of other formatting discrepancies, especially for the schema fragments.
>
> PPS: I can imagine that there is something about lining up the pixels and font rendering that leads to these discrepancies of pagination, even though I have the same default printer in all cases.  (But Windows 7 doesn't use the printer manufacturer's drivers any longer.)  As David Wheeler mentioned on the call, these variations are well-known.  My problem is that I can't tell whether the deviations hide more-material discrepancies such as defects in inter-page table splitting.   This also is what has bothered me about having the editable form as the authoritative edition.  There is no assurance that different users will see the same authoritative text.  I think fidelity should trump reusability and I have no evidence that the PDF renditions of these documents are worse in interchange than what I am seeing here.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 16:25
> To: 'ODF TC List '
> Cc: 'Michael Brauer '; 'Patrick Durusau '; robert_weir@us.ibm.com; 'Robin Cover'
> Subject: [office] Working Draft for ODF 1.1 (Second Edition)?
>
> As part of compiling ODF 1.1 Errata 01, I will be making a change-marked version of the OASIS ODF 1.1 Specification, reflecting the change that is needed to reflect the ODF 1.0 Errata 02 plus the IS 26300 COR1, COR2, and AMD1 (where they have deviations we must anticipate).
>
> My intention is to use those change-markings as the basis for the individual ODF 1.1 Errata 01 instructions.  I find this to be the most-reliable way to go about this.
>
> [ ... ]

-- 
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)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau