Re: [sca-bindings] ODF or Word format for the OASIS Specs??

[Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>]

Eric Johnson wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> Simon Nash wrote:
>> Eric Johnson wrote:
>>> I've run into at least one problem where round-trips between ODF and DOC
>>> don't quite work with our documents.  (Line numbers are just one
>>> example.)  I'd want to test more before assuming that we can use
>>> both. If you don't update the table of contents properly before
>>> converting to
>>> ODF, OpenOffice might mangle the links.
>>>
>>> Tests I've been doing just now show that once saved as an ODT file,
>>> OpenOffice doesn't show line numbers automatically upon reopening, even
>>> though the option is turned on.  Could be that this is a bug in OO 3.0.0
>>> which is fixed in 3.0.1 - I'd need to test.
>>>
>> We had an example of this kind of problem on today's Bindings call
>> where section numbers were different in OO and Word.
>>
>> I suspect that having some people view a document in OO with others
>> viewing it in Word is going to cause some problems.  So I was
>> suggesting that people could use whichever format they prefer for
>> authoring, but people viewing it would use the same software as
>> the author used.
> Keeping in mind that I'm the die-hard Linux user in the bunch, and I'm
> recommending some caution in switching, just based on little items here
> and there.
>>> Even though I'd be happier if we switched, I do recommend some
>>> caution here.
>>>
>>> OO does a *much* better job of generating PDFs.
>>>
>> I'm intrigued by this.  I never had any problems doing this with
>> Word+Acrobat.
> It could be this is just the default configuration.  Whatever the
> editors for the SCA specifications are doing, I'm not too enthused.
> 
> By *default* OpenOffice is generating a PDF table of contents (shows up
> on the left as clickable links), and all intra-document references are
> actually clickable.  All the external references end up clickable too. 
> If I take the .DOC file that gets published, open in in OpenOffice, and
> export as PDF, I get a much easier-to-use PDF document than what I'm
> seeing now.  Unfortunately, it doesn't end up being quite the same PDF
> when I do it, as say, when Anish or Simon does it.
> 
> I'd be satisfied if Word+Acrobat could mimic this, and the editors were
> doing what it takes to get the slightly nicer output.
 >
There are two ways to create a PDF from Word+Acrobat: print to PDF,
and save as PDF.  The former produces exactly the same as would have
been printed to physical paper - no clickable links, etc.  The latter
produces something a good deal more interesting, with clickable TOC
links, though I can't figure out how to get the TOC to show up in a
left sidebar.  In a past life I worked on documents that did this,
so I know what you mean.

I am attaching the results of a "save as PDF" on the JMS binding spec
CD01 rev4.  I would be interested in how this compares with the PDFs
that OO3 produces.

   Simon

>> Is this the solution to the problem... everybody posts PDFs?
> We need an editable format posted, though.
> 
> We did discuss this early on, and at least informally agreed that we'd
> stick to Word.  As the one who suffers most from that decision, I'm
> still OK with it.  I think the only reason it came up again was that the
> compare functionality in MS Word turns out to be awful - based on what
> Anish reports - and it worked in OpenOffice. Those comparison PDFs are a
> one-way problem - we don't need an editable form, so why not continue
> doing what we're doing?
> 
> -Eric.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 
> 
> 
>

sca-binding-jms-1.1-spec-cd01-rev4.pdf