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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

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

Subject: Re: [ubl] Comments to UBL V2.0 main specification (CS sanity check 4) by JPLSC

Dear Jon Bosak,
Thank you very much for your comments.
We will discuss your comments at the next JPLSC F2F meeting which is
scheduled to hold on December 8, 2006.
The followings are my thinking.
(1) I understand the merits to use the electronic hypertext like UBL
(2) What is a policy for OASIS to publish specifications regarding style?
Will all specifications of OASIS change to DocBook stylesheets in future?
As you maybe know, ebXML specifications (ebMS, ebCPPA, and ebBP) are written
by MS Word. And these specifications are well formatted. In case to print
these specifications on paper, we get good layout printed specifications. I
like these specification styles for users, because we only see or study
these specifications.
Best Regards,
Yukinori Saito

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jon.bosak@sun.com>
To: <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp>
Cc: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>; <kenichi.hayashi@mitsubishicorp.com>;
<kunio_ohno@justsystem.co.jp>; <kueno@iea.att.ne.jp>; <naitoh@is.oit.ac.jp>;
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ubl] Comments to UBL V2.0 main specification (CS sanity check
4) by JPLSC

Hello Saito-san,

Thank you very much for your comments!

With regard to your comments about style, please understand that
we are now using the OASIS DocBook templates to generate the HTML
output from an XML original.  In other words, the document itself
(UBL-2.0.xml) has no inherent output format; the format is
provided by the standard DocBook stylesheets as modified by OASIS
for OASIS publications.  Consequently, we no longer have control
over the appearance of the document.  For example, the placement
of figure titles is dictated by the OASIS DocBook stylesheets, not
by us.  Therefore the formatting issues you raise must be
addressed by OASIS for all of its DocBook-based publications.

Please note that printed output is not a deliverable of this
specification.  The UBL 2.0 specification is an electronic
hypertext.  The PDF file included in the package exists only to
fulfill a procedural requirement of the OASIS process and is not
intended to be printed out.  I hope that future versions of the
OASIS DocBook stylesheets will allow conformant applications to
produce usefully formatted PDF representations of some of the
specification, but this is an item over which we have no control.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the fact that UBL 2.0 has
no "official" printed representation means that the localization
subcommittees are free to create any format they like for printed
localized versions.  I see nothing that would prevent the JPLSC
from implementing its formatting suggestions in its own
publication of the specification.  I believe that this would apply
even to the HTML version, as it, too, is just a generated artifact
of the XML document.  Perhaps JPLSC members such as Justsystem can
approach this task as an interesting technical challenge.

With regard specifically to your comment about possible ISO
publication, I agree that there are problems here, but they are
much more extensive than perhaps you are aware.  For example, ISO
guidelines for the names of files submitted for publication are
not the same as ISO guidelines for the names of files to be
published on CD.  In fact, the entire ISO publication process
appears to be based on the requirements of certain proprietary
applications.  I believe that ISO itself must adopt standard data
formats and bring its publication processes into the new century
before we can hope to achieve alignment, especially in the case of
large electronic hypertexts such as UBL 2.0 that have no official
paper representation.

Regarding your other comments, with the close of the ballot
yesterday, UBL 2.0 is now an OASIS Committee Specification and
cannot be changed.  However, the issues you raise appear to be
ones that can easily be addressed in UBL 2.1, and we will
certainly keep your input on hand for use when we begin the next
minor revision cycle.

For UBL 2.0, the next steps are (1) localization and (2) the
creation of the Support Package, beginning with the meeting next
month in Singapore.  I will be grateful indeed if the JPLSC
contributes the level of quality and leadership it gave to UBL 1.0

Best regards,


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