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

[Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com>]

The problem is the the spec is just that - a vocabulary/grammar. It's not a rendering engine. I'm making the assumption that the spec is being edited in a rendering engine of some sort and not an XML editor such as Arbortext or Oxygen. If the latter were the case, then I'd forget about OO or any other implementation, consider the XML as source (just as you would if you authored in DITA or DocBook), and use an XSLT to produce both the PDF and HTML. Unfortunately DITA and DocBook can fairly easily be edited in their XML markup state; the same can't be said for ODF.

Those of us that have been working with document formats for decades know that a document authored in one specific version of an application running on a specific operating system with a specific print driver will likely never render the same given a different version of an application on that same operating system with that same print driver. The problems are compounded when you move across platforms and applications.

And yes, I have proven the same problems exist with PDF. It does not look the same on all systems, depending on how the file was saved originally.

Mary



On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> 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.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 
>