Re: [office] Editorial update on ODF 1.3 packages part

Hi Patrick,

Am Sa., 15. Aug. 2020 um 19:20ÂUhr schrieb Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>:

Svante,

On 8/15/20 4:45 AM, Svante Schubert wrote:

Hello Patrick,

Am Sa., 15. Aug. 2020 um 03:14ÂUhr schrieb Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>:

Svante,

I followed your checkboxes link but it came up empty? Was that right?

All eight links from my mail are opening atm full pages (just tested each) and at least the GitHub links do not need an additional login (tested by outsiders, too).

If the problem stillÂexists, let me assist you offlist.

The checkboxes link came up empty last night but today it is full of your comments. ?

These are my notes to remind me of tasks and are the upcoming commit messages.

Could you be less cryptic with your commit messages?

"Part 2: Fixing âshouldâ, âshould notâ, âmayâ and âneed notâ"

Sure, I will try. ;-) There is someÂmore information, if you follow the link, it is about the ISO Keywords mentioning the words mentioned in theÂTerminology chapter of the title page of part 2, those are not in a character style and should (or does ISO require it even be highlighted.

Doesn't tell me the fix nor the reason for it. What was wrong with the control language in part 2?

BTW, on ISO keywords:

When I asked about a problem with the keywords, I meant in reference to this document:

ISO/IEC Directives Part 2

https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=4230456&objAction=browse&sort=subtype

Notice that the term "highlight" does not appear at all and "bold" is defined only for "preferred terms."

Or to put it another way, ISO key words, 7 Verbal forms for expressions of provisions, shall, should, may, can, are not written in typographically distinct text.

Seems I am not able to access the ISO/IEC Directives.

You - who have access and are aware of ISO rules - have to be certain that we only "should" highlight and not "shall" highlight.

In general, it would be wise to move only 'allowed' defects to ODF 1.4, otherwise, the cost and time to fix them would only rise for us.

The exchange of words within our normative parts might be able to be automated, but I agree we should move as much as possible into ODF 1.4.Â

ISO does not comment on " implementation-defined or implementation-dependent"

Part 1 of ODF gives our definitions:

*****

implementation-defined behavior: behavior that depends on the implementation and that each implementation shall document.

implementation-dependent behavior: behavior that depends on the implementation. The implementation is not required to document which behavior occurs.

*****

Thank you!Â

Another example of a cryptic message:

"C19 - Part 1,3,4: Removing at the end (manually) three none-ODF XML attributes: draw:fill, draw:fill-color, draw:opacit"

What does that mean? draw:fill appears in the schema, as does draw:fill-color, and there is no "draw:opacit" but I don't know where you have removed it.

A bit more detail.Â

We are using conformant ODF 1.2 for the specification to avoid extended LibreOffice attributes.

You have found the attributes in ODF 1.3 schema, but you will not find them in ODF 1.2 schema.

I have validated the ODT withÂhttps://odfvalidator.org/

Â

Thanks!

Patrick

You are welcome, Patrick!

SvanteÂ

Is there something specific you noticed about the ISO keywords?

Take a look at ODF 1.3 CS01 HTML chapter 2.2.1 OpenDocument Package:

https://docs.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument/v1.3/cs01/part2-packages/OpenDocument-v1.3-cs01-part2-packages.html#__RefHeading__752791_826425813ÂÂ

It started looking into the ODF XML when fixing the following gap in the HTML: "OpenDocumentÂPackage"

It turned out that for some editing tasks it is far are easier working on the XML level than ODF editor level.

Regarding the "ISO Keyword" style: Let's compare CS01 with latest CS02.

I am providing in the following two screenshots of their HTML, where IÂam highlighting all ISO Keywords.

In CS01 we count here 6 ISO Keywords (in orange) ->

In CS02 we count here 17 ISO Keywords (in yellow) ->

The trick is to work on XML level and search for strings by the editor, as the eyes might fool you.

BTW you may highlight styles in the browser by using the browser development tool (opening by pressing F12 in Firefox, Edge, Chrome) or as I prefer to select a "shall" and choose in the mouse context menu "inspect..". There in the CSS style dialogue (see the arrow at the first picture) you may edit the background color CSS style as I did to highlight.

Above you see 6 in CS01 earlier and 17 keywords in CS02 highlighted. In total, the sum raised from 42 to 97 (countingÂ "<span class="ISO_20_Keyword"> in the HTML).

I just realized that *every* keyword within the normative text needs to be highlighted,ÂI will fix this quickly... ;-)

Let me ask you, are the only informative parts those being explicitly mentioned in the heading? And likely the title page?

We might want to consider adding parent styles for ODF 1.4, which divides the content between "informative" and "normative".

Likely direct children of "Normal", our specification root style, which was added to ODF 1.3 - and - as I just noticed - should be added to our documentation:

https://github.com/oasis-tcs/odf-tc/blob/master/src/test/resources/odf1.3/tools/How_to_prepare_ODF_specification_documents.md#paragraph-stylesÂ

With such style, we might divide the content into informative and normative parts by highlighting those styles.Â

Â

I could not find the ISO keyword explanation does anyone has a link?

I did find:Âhttps://www.iec.ch/members_experts/refdocs/iec/isoiecdir-2%7Bed7.0%7Den.pdf#page=47&zoom=100,92,708

Last but not least, can someone explain the criteria between making a feature implementation-defined or implementation-dependent?Â

Or can someone provide some reference?

Thanks in advance.

I can check them again but I think they are in fairly good shape from ODF 1.2.

I did not look at ODF 1.2 but CS01 should be as good as a comparison.Â

Hope you have started a great weekend!

Same to you, Patrick!

SvanteÂ
Patrick

On 8/14/20 6:39 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:

Dear ODF 1.3 spec reviewers,

I have worked this week on the ODF 1.3 packages specification and started on Friday a checklist on GitHub with minor editorialÂchanges:

https://github.com/oasis-tcs/odf-tc/issues/21Â

I would suggest using GitHub issues for editorial issues in the future because GitHub is naturally far better integrated with its own issue tracker than with Jira.

In addition, GitHub offers useful features as the checkbox feature I have been using.

Finally, everyone can easily separate ODF feature issues from editorial ones and ignore the latter.

There is an update on the ODF 1.3 packagesÂspecification.

After the pull request was reviewed and merged (and in general), you may find the latest ODT 1.3 specificationÂdocuments at:
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/odf-tc/tree/master/src/main/resources/odf1.3Â
The location of ODF 1.3 HTML files is listed in our README table.

Before the pull request was reviewed and merged a newer HTML & ODF of part 2 packages can be found at my GitHub repository.

I am aiming to fix some further minor issues (checkboxes) over the weekend onÂall parts.

Perhaps someone could assist me with the check on correct spelling & usage of our Terminology (e.g. ISO Keywords).
Just ping me... ;-)

Have a nice weekend,

Svante

Am Fr., 14. Aug. 2020 um 20:08ÂUhr schrieb Svante Schubert <svante.schubert@gmail.com>:

Hello Regina,

I borrowed the editor's token from Francis and already earlier some broken Internet links when I checked the HTML result with a link checker.

Two more references were broken in Part2 and I fixed some other problems on Top of Francis' work:Âhttps://github.com/oasis-tcs/odf-tc/pull/22

Still have to add my prior changes of this week now manually due to the problems with merging ODF changes...

I aim to fix further editorialÂproblems until our TC meeting, mainly HTML layout.

Have a nice weekend,

Svante

Am Fr., 14. Aug. 2020 um 17:19ÂUhr schrieb Francis Cave <francis@franciscave.com>:

Thanks, Regina. I must say I thought I'd fixed that, as I certainly saw this bug before. I'll make sure that it's fixed in CSD02.

I have issued a pull request on GitHub.

Kind regards,

Francis

-----Original Message-----
From: office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Regina Henschel
Sent: 14 August 2020 15:39
To: ODF member <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [office] Error: Reference source not found

Hi editors,

There are links to "Additional artifacts" missing in Appendix A and Appendix B of Part2 in the version from 12. August.

Kind regards
Regina

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.Â Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.Â Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
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 
-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
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 

office message