Hi Craig,
yeah, I think you captured it right
"no text allowed which is directly stated after the section title
if there are sub paragraphs below". For the WebSocket document the
reasoning in the end was to remove any normative sounding text - that was
identified as crux of the hanging paragraphs. Another idea was to introduce
a new paragraph (called something like "section overview") and
move all that text below that paragraph - we did not choose that for the
WebSocket document. Maybe we need some input from Patrick / TAB on how
to resolve that best / in an OASIS way.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
Matthias Hub
IBM Cloud Operating Environment Developer
and Smarter Home Solution Development Consultant
| +49-7034-643 x1261 | +49-160-7422995
IBM Deutschland Research &
Development GmbH Schönaicher Straße 220, 71032 Böblingen Vorsitzender
des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz, Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart,
HRB 243294
From:
"Considine, Toby"
<>
To:
"Gemmill, Craig"
<>, ""
<>
Date:
11.06.2014 23:08
Subject:
[obix] RE: Hanging
paragraph issue in core spec (OBIX-109)
Sent by:
<>
Sounds more like an error
in Toby (why do you listen to him anyway?) than in the comment…
“The single biggest problem
in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
– George Bernard
Shaw.
Toby
Considine
TC9, Inc
OASIS TC Chair: oBIX &
WS-Calendar
OASIS TC Editor: EMIX, Energy
Interoperation
SGIP Smart Grid Architecture
Committee
Email:
Phone: (919)619-2104
http://www.tcnine.com
blog: http://www.NewDaedalus.com
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Gemmill, Craig
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:56 PM
To:
Subject: [obix] Hanging paragraph issue in core spec (OBIX-109)
I’m not sure I understand this one. According
to Toby, all hanging paragraph issues in the WebSocket Binding spec are
addressed. But I still see things in WD11 like lines 47-49. This
looks to be text immediately following a heading. I’m not pointing
this out as wrong in WebSocket, because I think it’s fine. I’m
trying to understand what is desired for the core spec. If the requirement
is that you cannot have any text after a heading, then this seems to invite
a recursive application of the rule that would prevent you from ever having
any text. Is the rule that you cannot have text if and only if you
have subheadings?
So, this is legal:
2 Section Title
2.1 Subsection Title
blah blah blah.......
2.2 Subsection Title
blah blah blah.......
But this is not:
2 Section Title
blah blah blah this is NOT legal
here
2.1 Subsection Title
blah blah blah.......
So, if I have a 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, I
cannot have any text directly under 2.1 before the title for 2.1.1,
is that correct?
