[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMATAND TOOLS
> The version approved as CD04 was approved with the ODF version as > authoritative. I'm not sure whether I'm agreeing with Rob in this message, but here goes, FWIW: [Dennis] > It is startling when I > see .doc files, especially as authoritative sources, from other TCs. I don't understand the basis for the startlement: I would (and do) recommend that TCs designate the editable source as the authoritative format. XML, HTML, DITA-format, ODF, Word, whatever. If some TC uses Word as a word processor in document production, then the obvious format for "authoritative" reference (IMO) should be the original Word editable source -- not some secondary, derivative, possibly "corrupted" PDF, resulting from an approximate machine transform. Changes (viz., corruptions) introduced in (some) PDF generation transforms are widely attested. Not always, but too frequent for comfort. So I have noted on several fora that the OASIS provision to allow production of derivative works *should* imply that the editable source be nominated as the authoritative format. If not, then someone wanting to create a derivative work would potentially have to start work from a PDF -- transforming that "authoritative" PDF back into some useful editable format, for re-use in an editing framework suitable for creating derivative works. And the PDF-to-editable-text transform is known to be hazardous, at best, often leading to predictable classes of corruptions. It would not be safe to begin work with the original editable format if the PDF is authoritative, because changes in the PDF not detected (initially) by human inspection would lead to a derivative work based upon a non-authoritative document. Declaring the secondary generated PDF to be authoritative seems to me quite questionable if fidelity to the author's or editor's intent (in the editable source) is important. So I would recommend, if asked, that the TC use ODF as the authoritative format. YMMV. -rcc Robin Cover OASIS, Director of Information Services Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink Email: robin@oasis-open.org Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html Tel: +1 972-296-1783 -- On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > The version approved as CD04 was approved with the ODF version as > authoritative. > > Of course, we are free to make a different choice if/when we make a post > public review revision. > > And remember, just because there are known bugs in the ODF rendering does > not mean that there are not also bugs in the HTML or PDF exports. I've > certainly seen my share of those. I'll take an obvious but benign > rendering error over a subtle but pernicious one any day. > > -Rob Robin Cover OASIS, Director of Information Services Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink Email: robin@oasis-open.org Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html Tel: +1 972-296-1783 > > > "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 02/10/2010 > 01:19:07 PM: >> >> Subject: >> >> RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT AND > TOOLS >> >> This is a work-process issue. We have no agreement on what version and >> specific tool we share in common in order to be able to produce and work > on >> (authoritative) documents of the OIC TC, and ones the TC Administrator > can >> manipulate in order to produce the OASIS Standard version (if she is the > one >> who needs to be able to do that). >> >> It is an interoperability issue for ourselves in our own work. >> >> I notice that the proposed solution to the immediate issue involves >> proposing that a specific product release be used with, I suppose, a > prayer >> that the builds for different platforms don't have interop problems too. >> >> So, when we go to Public Review, how do we deal with this? That we > identify >> the document as one supported by a specific product version? >> >> I recommend that we avoid this by making the PDF be the authoritative >> version. Whatever fears there are of an unfaithful PDF result, I think > the >> odds of successful consumption by reviewers and user are clearly better > than >> what we are dealing with as a certainty. Also, the PDFs that are > relatively >> small, easy to review, and for the State of Interoperability, we have no >> concern about some normative text being corrupted in the PDF. >> >> - Dennis >> >> PS: Rob quipped that a committee can use any document format it wants, > even >> Microsoft Word .doc. If I'd been on my toes, I would have offered to > second >> that were it to be made as a motion. (It would be ironic if the ODF > exports >> to .doc were more reliable than what we are seeing in ODF interchange.) >> I am now accustomed to OASIS TCs that use ODF. It is startling when > I >> see .doc files, especially as authoritative sources, from other TCs. I > want >> us to have a reliable way to use ODF Text documents on the OIC TC. It > is an >> obvious dog-food issue. What can we do to achieve that successfully? >> >> PPS: Out of curiosity, I noticed that CD03 itself was identified with >> office:version="1.2" and >> <meta:generator>OOo-dev/3.2$Win32 >> OpenOffice.org_project/320m6$Build-9459</meta:generator>. This opens > just >> fine in OpenOffice.org 3.0.1 and (after ignoring the warning) > OpenOffice.org >> 2.4.1. >> >> PPPS: Since this is not about producing reports about specific products > but >> figuring out a way to use an interoperable set of tools for our own > document >> production, I tried Windows 7 WordPad on cd03. It doesn't handle > numbers on >> the headings and doesn't handle ToCs. On the other hand, Word 2007 SP2 >> opens all three of CD03, CD03-wd01 and CD03-wd02 and shows the ToC and >> in-body headings correctly EXCEPT that, for all three documents, the >> level-two headings all have page breaks in front of them and, with wd02 >> only, the Section numbering starts over at 1 with the Conclusions > section. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hanssens Bart [mailto:Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 08:30 >> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; oic@lists.oasis-open.org >> Cc: Rob Weir >> Subject: RE: [oic] Groups - state-of-interop-cd-03-wd02.odt uploaded - >> NUMBERING >> >> Well, we actually shouldn't comment on implementations per charter, but > I >> guess it's related to >> >> http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=106218 >> >> Should be fixed when opening in 3.2 and resaving again, I'll do that > when >> updating to cd4. >> >> >> Bart >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [dennis.hamilton@acm.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:58 PM >> To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org >> Cc: Hanssens Bart; Rob Weir >> Subject: RE: [oic] Groups - state-of-interop-cd-03-wd02.odt uploaded - >> NUMBERING >> >> OK, I didn't look closely enough. >> >> When I opened this document in OpenOffice 3.0.1, I did see the TOC with >> proper subsections, and I saw section numbers on the headings in the > body of >> the document. >> >> However, numbering is not maintained properly in the body. There are >> several section 0.1, for example. >> >> E.g., 2.2 is numbered 0.1, 2.3 is numbered 0.1 also, section 3 is number > as >> section 1, 3.2 is numbered 0.1, section 4 is numbered as section 1, etc. >> >> SO, I tried the OpenOffice 2.4.1, Sun Distribution. >> >> It has the TOC right and it has the subsections being in the same > section. >> But the subsections are all numbered *.1. That is, Section 4 has two >> subsections each numbered 4.1. >> >> FINALLY, I opened the package in WinZip and confirmed that >> <office:document-content> office:version="1.1". And also, in meta.xml, >> <meta:generator>OpenOffice.org/3.1$Unix >> OpenOffice.org_project/310m19$Build-9420</meta:generator> >> >> Yes, I would say that this is a big deal for the State of > Interoperability. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bart.hanssens@fedict.be [mailto:bart.hanssens@fedict.be] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 07:02 >> To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [oic] Groups - state-of-interop-cd-03-wd02.odt uploaded >> >> The document revision named state-of-interop-cd-03-wd02.odt has been >> submitted by Mr. Bart Hanssens to the OASIS Open Document Format >> Interoperability and Conformance (OIC) TC document repository. This >> document is revision #1 of state-of-interop-cd-03-wd01.odt. >> >> Document Description: >> >> >> View Document Details: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=36343 >> >> Download Document: >> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/36343/state-of-interop-cd- > >> 03-wd02.odt >> >> Revision: >> This document is revision #1 of state-of-interop-cd-03-wd01.odt. The >> document details page referenced above will show the complete revision >> history. >> >> >> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email > application >> may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and > paste >> the entire link address into the address field of your web browser. >> >> -OASIS Open Administration >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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: >> 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. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]