Dave,
Dave Pawson wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Patrick Durusau <>:
>
>
<snip>
>> That is I agree that terms should be defined but those definitions should
>> occur in context and not in a list divorced from that context.
>>
>
>
> Due to the length of the document I disagree.
> Searching for a term is horrible and wastes time in the current standard.
>
>
Ok but is this another "judgment" call as to how familiar the reader
should be with the subject matter of the standard?
Personally I wouldn't define any XML terminology or anything that is
commonly known in office markup circles.
I suppose something like "metadata manifest" which will appear for the
first time in ODF 1.2 merits a definition but that is one I would put in
context since you are unlikely to encounter it in other parts of the
standard.
Do note that we are generating extensive cross-references for elements
and attributes and it would be quite easy to do the same for "special"
terms. But I suspect it would be very limited set of terms. (I do agree
that terms of art from other standards, graphics are a good example,
should be defined by reference to the appropriate standards.)
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
