[Fwd: Re: [office-accessibility] Q: ODF 1.1, Soft Page Breaks]

All,

another editorial change request:

Recommendation is to replace

 >>> An application that computes a paginated layout of a document should
 >>> provide a facility to turn on soft page breaks for the purposes of
 >>> consistent page breaks and for proper conversion to digital talking book
 >>> formats (such as [DAISY]).

in the section about soft page breaks (section 2.3.1) with

 >>> An application that computes a paginated layout of a document should
 >>> provide a facility to turn on *export of* soft page breaks for the 
purposes of
 >>> consistent page breaks and for proper conversion to digital talking book
 >>> formats (such as [DAISY]).

Michael

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [office-accessibility] Q: ODF 1.1, Soft Page Breaks
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:45:45 +0200
From: Malte Timmermann <>
To: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <>
CC: Dave Pawson <>, 

References: <> 
<> 
<>

Yes, please forward...

Malte.

Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote, On 08/18/06 14:33:
> Dave, Malte,
>
> Dave Pawson wrote:
>   
>> Hi Malte.
>>
>> On 11/08/06, Malte Timmermann <> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I have some question and annotations to Soft Page Breaks.
>>>       
>>     
>>> Section "Use Soft Page Breaks":
>>> An application that computes a paginated layout of a document should
>>> provide a facility to turn on soft page breaks for the purposes of
>>> consistent page breaks and for proper conversion to digital talking book
>>> formats (such as [DAISY]).
>>>
>>> What do we want to say here:
>>> - turn on *export of* soft page breaks
>>>       or
>>> - turn on *using exported soft page breaks for pagination*
>>> It can't be both. ODF Apps can much easier export them than using them
>>> for layout.
>>> I assume we talk about export here...
>>>       
>> For Daisy, I am only interested in the XML I get from an ODF file,
>> so the 'export soft page breaks' interpretation is good for me.
>>     
>
> I also think "export of" was what we intended to say.
>
> Shall I forward this to the TC?
>
> Michael
>