Bart,
Actually rendering for our NIH needs is validated in the big picture at the style level.
So you are not allowed to have text in font smaller than 10 pitch and line spacing less than 1.
Also page count totals per section similarly. So its not what it "looks" like - but specific aspects of how it is formatted.
Then within the content - specific section headings, sub-headings and so on.
This requires tools that can "reach inside" the document and verify specific aspects or content.
Obviously this lends itself to neutral scripting techniques with functions designed to match the specified functional needs.
CAM is doing this type of approach for business information transaction exchanges for machine-to-machine rather than human-to-machine or human-to-human content - such as grants submissions example at NIH.
Thanks, DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] What are we validating and why?
From: Bart Hanssens <>
Date: Fri, June 06, 2008 2:06 pm
To:
David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
> Sounds familiar eh? Certainly I can point to CAM syntax compared to XSD
> say in this context ; -)
>
> So - if part of what we're after here is developing that big picture of
> requirements for a functional scripting that makes page content checking
> a snap - hell yeah - we need that!
I was considering jOpenDocument or OdfToolkit + Groovy, but I'll take a
look at CAM :-)
Anyway, checking *rendering* will be the most difficult part to automate
(this is a mayor issue for end users) and some parts might be ambiguous
/ not defined in the spec.
(like Rob said, this calls for an "ACID-test" for ODF)
Best regards,
Bart
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
