Difference between revisions of "Talk:TXTDSC"

From IHO Nautical Information Processing Working Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
[[User:Jens|jens]] 07:18, 22 August 2008 (CEST)
+
taken from ProdSpec S-100 part 10 proposal
 +
 
 +
The product specification imposes special requirements on the content of files named in TXTDSC or NTXTDS or equivalent new attributes intended for formatted text. SNPWG requires such constraints because digital nautical publications need formatted text. Proposals suggest well-known schemas or DTDs whose specifications are publicly available. Examples are HTML 4.01 (“Strict”) or XHTML 1.0 (“Strict”). If the product specification follows the HTML/XHTML approach the use of those standards should be more restricted, saying the content should be valid HTML 4.01 only, without specified tags (<a>, <img>, etc.).
 +
 
 +
The specification for formatted text content should prohibit dependencies on another component of the data set or external data. These rules mean that scripts, Java, and external CSS stylesheets are prohibited, as are external links (web site addresses may be included, but may not be coded as HTML links). Images may not be used, or used only in strictly limited circumstances. The use of frames should be prohibited.
 +
 
 +
[[User:Jens|jens]] 07:18, 22 August 2008 (CEST)
  
 
After having had a discussion with the industrial technical experts of SNPWG yesterday I would like to share some more thought on formats of the files referenced by TXTDSC/NTXTDS.
 
After having had a discussion with the industrial technical experts of SNPWG yesterday I would like to share some more thought on formats of the files referenced by TXTDSC/NTXTDS.

Revision as of 05:21, 22 August 2008

taken from ProdSpec S-100 part 10 proposal

The product specification imposes special requirements on the content of files named in TXTDSC or NTXTDS or equivalent new attributes intended for formatted text. SNPWG requires such constraints because digital nautical publications need formatted text. Proposals suggest well-known schemas or DTDs whose specifications are publicly available. Examples are HTML 4.01 (“Strict”) or XHTML 1.0 (“Strict”). If the product specification follows the HTML/XHTML approach the use of those standards should be more restricted, saying the content should be valid HTML 4.01 only, without specified tags (<a>, <img>, etc.).

The specification for formatted text content should prohibit dependencies on another component of the data set or external data. These rules mean that scripts, Java, and external CSS stylesheets are prohibited, as are external links (web site addresses may be included, but may not be coded as HTML links). Images may not be used, or used only in strictly limited circumstances. The use of frames should be prohibited.

jens 07:18, 22 August 2008 (CEST)

After having had a discussion with the industrial technical experts of SNPWG yesterday I would like to share some more thought on formats of the files referenced by TXTDSC/NTXTDS. The ideas should be taken into consideration by TSMAD. We are not willing to press the standard in one or the other way. We only intend to ensure that the most options have been discussed.

i. The standard may define a list of acceptable file formats. The advantage is to allow *.txt as well and not forcing HOs to restructure their existing *.txt information into one particular file type like e.g. *.html/ *.xhtml/ *.htm ... No disadvantages spotted so far.

ii. The standard may permit the same information in different files with same file name but different extension; e.g. file abc.txt contains the same information like abc.xml. The advantage is to let the decision which file will be presented on an ECDIS screen to the ECDIS software. This will open a good competition market; which system provides the information in the most convenient way to the mariner. The disadvantage is how to ensure both content versions harmonized and how to convince HOs to provide the information in different formats. However, this might be a HOs or RENC work.