(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

[Keith Bierman]

I strongly concur with the conclusion, ISO shouldn't be revising the
document after the committee has done it's work.

I wouldn't object to their simply adding front or back material to the PDF;
*as long as they did no harm in the process* (I don't know how they
destroyed the links, I add material with post processors without harm; but I
don't doubt the dedicated ISO staff can do better).

But anything more than that, or even that if they've proved their
incompetence to the satisfaction of the committee should be prohibited.

So no need for them to learn LaTEX ... they shouldn't be doing anything that
needs it ;>



Keith Bierman
khbkhb at gmail.com
kbiermank AIM
303 997 2749


On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Dan Nagle <dannagle at verizon.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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
>
> --
> Cheers!
>
> Dan Nagle
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20101020/0beffc88/attachment.htm>