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] Status of Committee Specification Draft 02 -- earlier (Re: [office] Agenda for ODF TC Teleconference Monday, 17 August 2020)


Hi Francis,

Am Mo., 17. Aug. 2020 um 11:16ÂUhr schrieb Francis Cave <francis@franciscave.com>:
Hi Svante

The short answers to your questions are:

1. No. In fact, typographic highlighting of words such as "shall" is not allowed in standards developed within the ISO process. The purpose of styling such words with a named character style is, so far as I understand it, not in order to make them appear different to the human reader of the text, but as an aid to the editors and possibly to users of the HTML version checking which provisions are mandatory, which are recommended, which are optional, and which behaviours are forbidden.

2. According to ISO editors, who were recently asked this question, a paragraph is non-normative if it doesn't contain any ISO keywords. In fact, ISO now say that, apart from indicating that a whole Appendix is non-normative (actually they use the word "informative"), by adding the word "informative" to the subtitle of the Appendix, such wording is not necessary and should be avoided.

Thank you very much for your quick reply and interesting answers.Â
I agree withÂyou now and have moved the keyword handling to ODF 1.4 on my ToDo list as well.


I disagree that styling of ISO keywords can be completely automated. There are definitely contexts in English, such as in subordinate clauses, where the use of "may" is correct (its use as a subjunctive verb, for example) but is not to be interpreted as an ISO keyword. I don't believe that it would be practical to implement the natural-language processing that would be necessary to check all such instances. However, since uses of "shall", "shall not", "should" and "should not" should always be in the strict sense, checks on these terms could be automated.

It feels like our view upon worlds might be colliding here, so we do not have to clarify this here and now. ;-)

In my opinion, from a software engineer perspective, the ODF specification as a blueprint for software should aim to become more and more part of the automated CI/CD process. I notice a technological gap - especially in terms of using automation - between "companies" such as ISO ('stone-age') and Google ('technological-frontier').
Nowadays in (new) software, every feature should be able to be tested automatically. If the feature is without an automatic test, it does not exist.
Therefore, if it is possible to add an automatic test for this highlighting, we should add one.
If this requires that we keep control of our English context and if necessary flag all similar none ISO Keyword as false-positives, so be it.

Talk to you soon,Â
SvanteÂ

Kind regards,

Francis



Sent from my iPad

On 17 Aug 2020, at 09:15, Svante Schubert <svante.schubert@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Patrick, Hi Francis,

I have two unanswered questions myself, I might have asked before:
  1. Is our "ISO Keyword" highlighting by character style mandatory or optional to become an ISO standard?
    You sent me an ISO reference:Â
    https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objid=4230450&objAction=browse&sort=name&viewType=1
    There are 150MB of 84 files with additional referencesÂto other sites.
    I fullyÂtrust you, Patrick and Francis, as our ISO experts to clarify this issue. :-)

    We surely do not want to create later an ODF 1.3 corrigenda on ISO level to solve such a problem.
    I only wrote a very tiny ISO corrigendum for ODF once for Sun, it took me a full week of stubborn copy & paste: stating every erroneous occurrence by page number with before and after state.Â
    If there is any doubt that the styling is optional, we need to fix this before submitting ODF 1.3 to ISO.
  2. How are all the informative parts identified in ODF 1.3?Â
    Is the following covering all informative parts?
    1. Every informative chapterÂisÂcontaining a substring: "(Non normative)"
    2. In addition, within a chapter may occur informative parts - as explained in Terminology:
      "Text with a gray background color which is contained in boxes is informative."
In any case, all "ISO Keyword" changes should be done (semi-)automated from the XML side and not by reading and manual editing.Â
The latter is obviously too error-prone and time consuming.

Your question I have answered below, Patrick.

Am Mo., 17. Aug. 2020 um 03:17ÂUhr schrieb Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>:
....

4. Status of Committee Specification Draft 02? It isn't clear who has the editing token. We need a final version for voting.


Status of Committee Specification Draft 02. There are only editorial changes on, which might be readily integratedÂat the start of our call.

The latest reviewed state of ODF 1.3 CS02 deliverables are within our TC GitHub repository:
My general editorial ToDo list:
As you might notice from the checkboxes, I was not able to work as I hoped I could at the weekend.
Until our call, I am in possession of the "virtual editor token(s)" - created for each unmergable ODT documents - please tell me if you need one or a fix.ÂÂ

Talk to you soon,
Svante
Â
...


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