Next in thread →
Next in month →
Re: [office] Glossary for 1.2
Title: Re: [office] Glossary for 1.2 The approach the SOA RM TC took was to only add definitions only: where there are multiple definitions or other ambiguities in the commons; OR where the specification uses the term in a context where its’ definition is different than as defined in the commons. Duane On 16/07/08 8:39 AM, "Dave Pawson" <> wrote: 2008/7/16 Patrick Durusau <>: > Dave Pawson wrote: >> Judge the clarity by viewing it as a new reader. >> >> > > If you read the JTC 1 Directives on standards you will find that standards > are written presuming a great deal of knowledge on the part of the reader. Not helpful, since it is too general to use. > It is what makes them short enough to be useful (well, in some cases). > Granted there is a school of tutorial style standards but I am not a member. I'm with you there. Equally I hate poor/no definitions in any standard. Clarity is the goal. I'm (reluctantly) following the W3C school of standards, i.e. a standard is written for an implementer. (Equally, I've pushed for the 'annotated specification' so ordinary users can read it, but that should be a separate document) >>> >>> Personally I wouldn't define any XML terminology or anything that is >>> commonly known in office markup circles. >> "commonly known in office markup circles." ? >> No thanks. That's exclusive. >> >> > > And what is wrong with being "exclusive?" As I mentioned, I don't intend to > define XML either. That is exclusive. > Or is it only certain kinds of "exclusive" that bother you? Clearly. We all have our own fields of knowledge. I'm new to 'office markup circles'. I'm not new to XML. >If weight on "odd term." What is an "odd term" to you from an > XSL-FO perspective might not be an "odd term" to me and vice versa. It's called a balanced view. That's where a group of users comes in. To produce that balance. > > The problem in this sort of discussion is that everyone (including me) has a > set of examples in mind that they don't ever trot out. This is not an issue > that can be settled in the abstract. Not abstract, I'm referring to odf 1.2, hoping to improve clarity wrt 1.1 > I wonder if we can use one of the mechanisms in ODF 1.2 to > mark some term and its definition, in situ and then for the annotated > version, have that automatically extracted and sorted into a definitions > section? If the definitions are in another document they won't be normative? Wrong IMO That should be doable and other occurrences of that term could have > automatic links generated to that definition. (Easy if we had easy xml:id attributes :-) > > That would satisfy my concern that we distinguish between the standard and > the handbook on the same subject. I don't see a 'definitions' as ancilliary. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -- ********************************************************************** Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc. Duane's World TV Show - http://www.duanesworldtv.org/ Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html **********************************************************************
Next in thread →
Next in month →