OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [tab] Re: [ubl-comment] UBL Naming and Design Rules Version 3.0


+1 on pointing out the parallelism of the clauses for the benefit of the reader.

What threw me, in retrospect, was the presumption of normative unless marked as non-normative.

When that is in place, I have experienced it with language to that effect in the document, not a presumption about standards in general. In part because notes are mostly non-normative but you can have normative notes.

+1 on your point about better communication about hanging paragraphs to editors. The Tab has tried various means to point out editorial considerations, prior to drafting, with mixed success. Any and all suggestions in that regard would be greatly appreciated.

Hope you are having a great evening!


PS: Sorry for the delayed response, Carol came home from work and I got distracted. ;-)

On 04/28/2015 08:34 PM, G. Ken Holman wrote:
At 2015-04-28 20:12 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
On 04/28/2015 07:53 PM, G. Ken Holman wrote:
Not labeled non-normative, hence normative. I didn't think normative clauses needed to be declared.
OK, then why do we have the 1st subclause versus 2nd subclause language?

To bring the reader's attention to the parallel subclauses. Every clause except the introduction and the conformance (first and last) is structured with the first subclause as normative and the second subclause as informative, with parallel sub-subclauses where they exist.

I felt it important in the introduction to bring this to the reader's attention to make better use of the document.

Label the 2nd subclause as non-normative. Yes?

I do not see a single 2nd subclause that is not labelled as non-normative. Were you under the impression there are some?

That's what confused me. The draft when to the trouble of saying normative versus non-normative for subclauses, but never said for the sections.

I wouldn't think it need be said. All clauses of a specification are normative unless they are marked non-normative, given that a non-normative clause's subclauses are part of that clause.

BTW, unless I am badly mistaken, the normative unless labeled non-normative language does not appear in the draft. I went through all 27 uses of non-normative and didn't see it.

Need it be said? I see no benefit to the publication to label normative sections as such. The specification is normative and working down the clause tree when you hit a non-normative clause, that clause (which contains all of its subclauses) is non-normative.

Please forgive me for not recognizing what the confusion is.

It falls neither under the first sub-section nor under the second sub-section, but is in fact a collection of hanging paragraphs.

"Hanging"? The paragraphs are encompassed as clause 3, introducing the context of the subclauses.

That is if I refer to 3 Documents, libraries, components and extensions, do I mean just the three paragraphs I quoted above or do I mean all of section 3?

All of section 3 ... I didn't think there was any other way to read that.
Then how do I refer to the first three paragraphs? You say they are normative (assuming the rule about normative in the absence of being non-normative is added), so how do I point them out?

I agree, the way it is written, I can't refer to them. 3 either means all of 3 or nothing at all.

What is the problem with referring to 3 as all of three? Or the paragraphs at the beginning of 3?

Personally I would insert 3.1 (and sections under the other main sections as necessary) to hold these paragraphs and say that everything that isn't a note or marked non-normative is normative. Rather than relying on readers to understand that normative or non-normative is implied by the earlier description.

Is there a requirement in an OASIS specification to structure clauses that way? I cannot think of where editors are directed in that regard.
They aren't other than my rearguard efforts to get editors to abandon hanging paragraphs. It is a hold over from ISO standards editing. I think it is clearer than not being able to reference the paragraphs at all.

Not all of the major clauses currently have introductory paragraphs, but I will have to introduce them in order to maintain the documentation convention of what will now be parallel subclauses 2 and 3 instead of 1 and 2.

What is the editorial direction, then, for labeling introductory paragraphs to a clause? The title of the clause already gives the context of the hanging paragraphs. I don't think it is appropriate to repeat the clause title for subclause 1. Am I directed to title the subclause 1 as "Introduction"? I think that would be confusing for major clause 1.

Such a rule needs to be spelled out to editors before the effort is put into writing text that will then have to be rewritten as a result of comments received.

. . . . . . . Ken

Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/video.htm |
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ |
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com |
Google+ profile: http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/about |
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

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:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]