Re: [sca-assembly] Re: Moving to OpenOffice.org? (Was: [sca-assembly] Issue238 proposal v2)

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Folks,

I wondered how long it would be before
someone would point out that both PDF and HTML generation
is actually a TC Admin task in the new
process.  ;-)

While I don't wish a load of extra work
on TC Admin, I can play the selfish view that we in the TC generate
PDF lots (eg every issue resolution
with an updated spec doc) while we generate HTML very little - if at
all in the new process. So, I'll take
a toolset that does PDFs well over one that does HTML well....

PS Open Office wins hands down for me
in one respect - the ability to edit 2 different pages of the same
document side-by-side, which MS Word
can't do.  Why do we need to edit in that way?   Well, try the
editing process for Normative statements,
where there is an inline piece and a piece in an Appendix,
with cross-references....


PPS... I note that one way to get a
nice HTML from ODF is to save the ODF into a DOC format, then use
Word to read it and gen the HTML.  Generally,
that works well.  Fine if HTML gen is an infrequent event...

Yours, Mike

Dr Mike Edwards		Mail Point 146, Hursley Park
Technical Strategist		Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN
SCA & Services Standards		United Kingdom
Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC
IBM Software Group
Phone:	+44-1962 818014
Mobile:	+44-7802-467431 (274097)
e-mail:	mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
To:	Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Cc:	sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	19/11/2010 20:40
Subject:	[sca-assembly] Re: Moving to OpenOffice.org? (Was: [sca-assembly] Issue 238 proposal v2)

---

On 11/19/2010 11:50 AM, Mary McRae wrote:
> As an FYI, I would report that numbering is still an issue with OO
and the HTML is, in comparison with Word, awful :(
>
> Compare this file (produced earlier this week with the latest release
of OpenOffice):
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/Post2.0/sstc-saml-metadata-algsupport-v1.0-csprd02.html
> with this one (produced from Word 2010 earlier this week):
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/emix/emix/v1.0/csprd01/emix-v1.0-csprd01.html
>
> Note that the TOC entries are actual hypertext links, the spacing
is the same as the PDF or Word file, and all of the numbering, including
the appendix, is correct.
>

(changed the subject header per Danny's email)

Thanks for sending those links.

I noticed that in the ODF version of the document, the TOC does not 
contain links either -- so it isn't different from the HTML version. But
the Appendices indentation and numbering is really screwed up and it 
appears to be part of Section 3 Conformance.
What was the version of OOo used to generate the HTML?

I should note that this is a vast improvement over how OOo used to 
generate HTML when WS-RX TC was using ODF. We ended up using Word to 
open the ODF file and generate the HTML. I just tried that with the SAML
v2.0 Metadata Profile for Algorithm Support (that you pointed to), and
this way of generated HTML works pretty well (spacing, numbering is as
expected).

So if we go with ODF, we can use OOo to edit the source, use OOo to 
generate PDF, and Word for HTML. But with the new process, the TC 
doesn't generate the final docs anyway, and we never use HTML for any TC
review/approval; it is used only for publication. So I guess it is the
TC Admin's problem  ;-P

-Anish
--


Thanks.

-Anish
--

> This is *not* a reflection on ODF, but on application implementation.
I haven't found any other ODF implementation to be better as of yet. While
the latest releases of OO are vastly improved, they still have a ways to
go.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mary
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>
>> On 11/19/2010 8:55 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>>>   Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> On 11/19/10 1:59 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *One thing to consider seriously for the 1.2 version of
the specs is
>>>> whether to do a*
>>>> *complete migration to OpenOffice from Word format. I
note that most
>>>> of the newer*
>>>> *spec documents are in OO format.*
>>>>
>>>> *The time to make such a significant change is at the
point where we
>>>> rebase 1.2 on*
>>>> *the final 1.1 spec.*
>>>>
>>>> *I'd appreciate knowing everyone's view on this. I personally
find OO
>>>> easier to handle*
>>>> *today than Word, but I realize that may not be the general
view.*
>>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> As I move between Mac, Windows and Linux, OpenOffice has the
extreme
>>> advantage of being consistent across platforms.
>>>
>>> I'm sure folks from Oracle will object to switching to it,
though ;-) .
>>>
>>
>> Usually, I have to wait for my corporate overlords to let me know
what position they would like me to espouse, before I comment. But in this
case I'll go out on a limb here, deep down in the salt mines:
>>
>> If/when we do this, we'll have to consistently use OOo, as there
are sometimes suble differences in how OOo and Word (with the plugin) displays
the doc (at least it did in the past). I'm fine with a switch as I'm comfortable
editing with either tool. It'll involve some editorial work in getting
a few things right (for example the normative statement color highlighting).
I would also want to check that the HTML generated from OOo is not too
different from the generated PDF -- perhaps the OASIS folks have already
verified this. In the past (and things have improved significantly since
the 2.0 release), the HTML generation was not acceptable.
>>
>> Summary: I'm fine with the switch, if OOo can generate decent
HTML.
>>
>> -Anish
>> --
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU