[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 FORMAT ANDTOOLS
Btw, I hear rumors over the years of something like a "Spec ML" for standards. Anything ever come of that? -Rob Robin Cover <robin@oasis-open.org> wrote on 02/10/2010 02:22:53 PM: > > Subject: > > RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT AND 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]