Hi Andreas, On 20 Oct 2005, at 9:39, Andreas Savva wrote:
Hi Michel,
Michel Drescher wrote:
I have some minor comments about your changes:
1) ch. 6.3 Application Elements As JSDL allows only one Application element, shouldn't the chapter be named "Application Element"?
This is the top level section describing all application-related elements so 'Application Elements' is accurate. There is a separate subsection for the 'Application Element'.
Ok.
2) ch. 6.4 Resource Elements As JSDL allows only one Resource element, shouldn't the chapter be named "Resource Element"?
The JSDL element is 'Resources' and has its own section while this is the top level section for all resource related elements. So it is accurate.
Ok.
3) Appendix 1 What's this funny HYPERLINK constrict in the document?
You have to be more specific. Are you referring to the non-normative reference to the schema on gridforge? It seems fine to me. (Hopefully this is not a Windows-Mac issue...)
Normally, Word formats hyperlinks using blue colour (purple for visited links), underlines them and adds a special "open browser" action. The link in the appendix appeared to me as some type of Word Macro or Formula (like date fields etc. that update automatically) looking similar like "{HYPERLINK<hyerlink text>}". Now, opening the document the second time (from the local drive), the link is formatted correctly, and a tracked change nags about "Unknown Author: Field COde Changed".
4) General nag Do we really have to publish Word documents? I generally feel uncomfortable with this. I rather prefer PDF for public audience...
What's your concern? Our work is meant to be publically available and copyright belongs with GGF.
I am not concerned of copyright, I am concerned of the following: a) hidden, historic text fragments people may unleash (un)intentionally [see several issues where highly sensitive political documents unleashed that correct data has been changed to incorrect contents to suite the political party. Use Google to search for hidden historic content in Word documents.] b) We are (beware, I am wearing my GGF hat) a *standards* group. The Word document format in itself is not standardised. The fact that almost everybody uses it, does not qualify it as a real standard. To be honest, I really *do* prefer the OpenDocument format, standardised by OASIS. There are several word processors that do support this document format. c) Word is obviously inconsistent in itself (is this really new info?), see this funny hyperlink example. Other examples are different document formatting depending on the printer used (and fonts available on the system), etc. d) Using Word documents forces every author to use Word as well. This incurs substantial costs on all participants. While this is usually of a lesser issues for larger companies (who do have Word licenses anyway) private persons (who should be attracted by *really* open standardisation groups as well) are barred out except they invest in software. I find this quite ironic. e) Interoperability (may also be seen as a subtopic of d) is an issue here. People prefer different platforms for software development. Now, as everybody knows, Word is *NOT* available for i.e. Linux. [Personal rant: Why bother, there are tons of way more productive alternatives available!] So you force people to actively *buy* Windows (or, preferably, Mac OS X) *and* Word. Call me an extremist. Cheers, Michel