(j3.2006) Fwd: PLEASE PROOF: My proposed response to ISO/CS w.r.t its recent "requirement" about document submission format. FEEDBACK DUE by 2010-11-01

Dan Nagle dannagle
Wed Oct 20 06:44:29 EDT 2010


On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Malcolm Cohen wrote:

> They are asking for the *REVISABLE* version of the document, and give Word as an example, viz "e.g. Word".

An earlier version of the proposal did mandate Word.
(And, in fact, it mandated .doc, not even .docx !)
I agree that the current proposal does not.

> This is not clueless.  It does look like a simple power-grab though: they apparently want to be able to do the revisions of the document (for publication) themselves instead of liaising with project editors as SC22 has asked (on many occasions).  They can in fact do this with PDF as is (and did so to replace the cover page of the F2008 FDIS), but I guess it is more work for them and they are limited in what changes they can effectively make.

In any case, I take Malcolm's reply to be a more nuanced support
of Rex's proposed document rather than a rejection of it.

What the ISO editors are trying to avoid, IMHO, is learning LaTex.
The two committees I'm know, WG5 and WG23, both use LaTex as the revisable source.

If anyone objects to Rex's document, please post it.  TIA


Dan Nagle

More information about the J3 mailing list