RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT AND TOOLS

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

My startlement is that I don't see ODF Text documents used more, though I
fully understand the tendency to use the binary forms of Microsoft Word as a
common authoring form.  I have been in ODF-focused activities enough lately
that seeing other formats shows up as odd and I have to remind myself that's
not odd after all.  (I need to get out more.)

I think the ODF authoring format is valuable to have available, especially
for use in creation of derivative works (possibly by scraping the XML or
conversion into another format).  This does not strike me as the main
purpose of the specification, and, fortunately, we confer no authority on
derivatives and can sleep easily about that.

However, I am concerned that although an original author will see their
intentions realized when they look at documents they write in the same
product version they used to author with, there are these too-prevalent
situations where that intention is not conveyed to others because of
interchange interoperability problems.  This is even funnier in a Public
Review situation, since comments about problems in appearance will not be
reproducible by those using the original tool.  For final form formats, we
at least have a way of holding the thing steady while we wring its neck. 

This kind of system-level incoherence reminds me of the past problems about
HTML e-mail rendering where the recipient doesn't see what the sender does
but can't demonstrate it to the sender (unless power-user enough to send
screen shots). 

For the short documents (under 25 pages) we are talking about here on the
OIC TC, I hereby offer to provide the meticulous proof-reading of PDFs
required to ensure their fidelity to the authored form (as well as I can
tell what that form is), and to derive such a PDF if others haven't found a
toolset that does the job adequately. 

 - Dennis

PS: Since we are willing to deliver to ISO/IEC the PDFs they ask for or are
willing to make, I am puzzled that we find PDF creation so unspeakably
untrustworthy.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:23
To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Cc: oic@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT
AND TOOLS

[ ... ]

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.

[ ... ]

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.

[ ... ]