Bosak-san,
> Perhaps JPLSC members such as Justsystem can
> approach this task as an interesting technical challenge.
My colleague of Mori-san realized Saito-san's request as attached PDF file
which is formatted by Justsystem's Ichitaro.
Best Regards,
--------------------------------------
Kunio Ohno
Justsystem
Email:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:08 AM
> To:
> Cc: ; ;
> ; ; ;
>
> 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
> localization!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jon
>
>
