[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Re: Moving to OpenOffice.org? (Was: [sca-assembly]Issue 238 proposal v2)
On 11/19/2010 11:35 PM, Mike Edwards wrote: > > 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... > You can skip the 'conversion to DOC format' step -- so it is much easier. I can generate HTML from ODF using Word 2007. -Anish -- > 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/ > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]