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

[Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>]

Eric Johnson wrote:
> I took binding-jms-cd01-rev4, opened it in OpenOffice, fixed the line 
> numbering, and exported the PDF.
> 
> Attached is the result.  It is more than three times larger - I wonder 
> what the difference is?
> 
The formatting in the Word+Acrobat version looks a bit nicer to me.
For example, section 1.2 has the indentation badly mangled in the
OO3-produced version.  I also prefer the way the Word+Acrobat version
puts a gap between line numbers and text.

I found the button to get the left sidebar TOC to appear in the
Word+Acrobat version.  This is great!

We should ask the editors to use this form in future when producing PDFs.

   Simon

> -Eric.
> 
> Simon Nash wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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