@manuel489 reported that:

The space between parenthesis and math symbol is a little bit longer than usual.

@Intelligent2013 could you have a look? Thanks.

Kelvin MEPs technically belong to the Annex of the MEP Kelvin of the SI Brochure.

@metanorma/editors if there are non-content issues, please ping @Intelligent2013 or @opoudjis . Thanks!

Original comments file:
Observations mep mole.xlsx

This is to do with math formula variables spacing inside side notes. Notice in the sidebar the variables seem to be spaced out ("justified" spacing?).

i.e. these seem to be spaced out

• "U_max"
• "V_max"
• "W(Cu)"

Original:

Generated:

Originally reported in #41 .

1. Unify titles and parts designation. What are the part numbers?
2. Are these MEPs? I think so.

This is the full PDF version: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf

Confirmed with BIPM we need to convert the whole source:

• French
• English
• Appendix 1-4 (only 1 and 4 are in the PDF, 2 and 3 are on the BIPM site separately, we need to convert all)

(The previously posted one was only English: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9-EN.pdf)

Will post the Word version when we get it. Not yet actionable until we have the Word source. Except for French and English portions, the Appendices are actionable.

Content for Appendix 1 and 4 can be found online at their site.

• Appendix 1: #2
• Appendix 2: #5
• Appendix 3: #4
• Appendix 4: #3

MEP-3 (guide-ccl-GD-MeP-3-en.adoc)

1. I added nosee% in the meanwhile, but there is no need for adding page number in this cross-reference, since the figure is right below the text, on the same page. The same applies to several other figures in this document and the table below.

MEP candela rapport (mep-candela-rapport.adoc)

1. In case section is marked with [heading=terms and definitions] attribute, default intro text is used. However, here we have some non-generic intro in the original document. It can also be seen that the subsections for terms are not generated as usually (they don't differentiate from the rest of the text).
   Should we just remove this attribute?

Original:

Generated:

2. Colon and blank space are missing after "Note x to entry".

BIPM brochure (FR)

1. There is an extra page with "Références" title in header. @Intelligent2013 could you please check?

Apply UnitsML in https://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/si-mep/SI-App2-ampere.pdf

A general comment is that the font chosen for the main text is not pleasant to read on a screen. It appears to be too bold and is not sharp.

The fonts are identical to the fonts in the source PDF.

@opoudjis I partially agree with your statement. But I think I understand the why BIPM made that comment. Maybe the problem comes form the PDF viewer software. I'm using Acrobat Reader and this is how it looks in some parts:

(left: original , right: generated)

In the red square areas, notice how "Kcd" and "540x10^12 Hz" look more bold compared to original version.
Here's another sample:

(left: original , right: generated)

Apparently, this only happens in math expressions. However, if I zoom into the bold text, it looks almost the same:

(left: original , right: generated)

Originally posted by @manuel489 in https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-si-brochure/issue_comments/708076317

Original:

Generated:

The generated version is missing the page number.

I believe semantics trumps the "bold" styling here but we need to confirm that it is acceptable.

This list:

Originally posted by @manuel489 in #40 (comment)

As requested in #2 (comment).

From BIPM on the French text:

• there should always be an unbreakable space in front of “double” punctation marks, i.e : ; ! and ?
• there are a few places where there is a space in front of a comma, which should not be there

In sources/sib-a1-fr.adoc the single document should be split into multiple files just like the English one in sources/sections-a1-en.

We need to ensure the content structure is identical between the two.

@manuel489 @anermina any of you do French? Thanks!

BIPM performed a review of the document and indicated the following issues to be fixed:

Page 3 : “SI“ is missing at the end of the title

Page 4: ISBN number is missing

Page 5: wrong title “Résumé” instead of “Le BIPM et la Convention du Mètre »
The list of member states in the margin begins too low and extends over two pages
The dots are missing in the list following the third paragraph
Much too large vertical space before the second list of bullet points
Dots are missing in the second list

Page 6: the numbers are missing in the list of Consultative Committees at the bottom of the page

Page 7: dots are missing in the list of bullet points in the middle of the page

Page 8: blue-red percent symbols between section numbers and titles

Page 9: All decisions of Annex 1 are listed separately
Annex 5 does not exist

Page 12: The four paragraphs on the annexes 1 to 4 should be moved to the left.
In the original, the note has two paragraphs, the space has disappeared

Page 13: The lines of the first paragraph are unequally spaced as a consequence of the superscripts

Page 15: The notes in the margin should be vertically aligned with the top of the corresponding paragraph
In the second note in the margin the subscripts “-1” are too big
In the same note, the minus sign in the parentheses should be a superscript (-)

Page 16: Table 1: the values of the Boltzmann and Avogadro constants are wrong.

Page 17: the note in the margin is at the wrong place. It should be aligned with table 2 on the following page
The second part of this note, starting with “La commission…” is completely out of place. It belongs to page 29 (of the original)
The note following table 2 should not be there, it is a duplication of the note in the margin.

A general comment is that the font chosen for the main text is not pleasant to read on a screen. It appears to be too bold and is not sharp.

CC @metanorma/editors @opoudjis @Intelligent2013

The document under review was this:
20201006-si-brochure.zip

We need to come up with fixes or explanations for those that can't/shouldn't be fixed.

https://www.bipm.org/fr/publications/mises-en-pratique/

We have English ones done but no French.

Please follow latest structure.

There are nearly 200 comments. I will post them in separate issues, linked from here. We will need to fix all of these issues and also fix the English counterpart if the issues exist there, too.

1. #40
2. #41
3. #42
4. #43
5. #44

1. Frontpage: Capital letters are used in the original EN document.
   Original French document uses the same format as generated (EN and FR), so this is probably an inconsistency in BIPM, but "Bureau International des Poids et Mesures" seems right to me for both versions. @ronaldtse ?

Original:

Generated:

2. Cross-reference to table is written with capital T in the original EN document.
   French uses small letters.

Original:

Generated:

3. Decimal dots should be used in EN version instead of decimal commas which are used in FR version.

4. We need the word "page" at the beginning of each new page for ToC of Appendix 1. (Reported in #47 as well.)

Original:

Generated:

5. Both levels of items list are numbered with Greek letters in the generated PDF. (Similar reported in #47.)

Original:

Generated:

6. Zeros are truncated when they shouldn't be.

Original:

Generated:

7. Second note in 24th CGPM is appearing at the beginning of the text, and it should be lower.

Original:

Generated:

8. The same comments regarding ToC as in #47 apply here as well.

Should we have the first line in the generated ToC?
Do we need to show subsections for annexes in ToC? Do we need to add a dot after annex number? -> (Appendices instead of Annexes in this case.)

9. The same comments regarding cross-referencing sections with/without corresponding page numbers as in #47 apply here as well.

In which cases should the page number be added as a part of the cross-reference?
Should the word see before the cross-reference be added automatically, or via markup?
In case page number is added, we currently have repetition of the word see, as in the following example: see 2.3.6, see p. 30.

We need to update the MEP Kilogram to the latest 2020-08-04 version.

From BIPM:

The XML file has been produced from a previous verison of the mise en pratique.
The current version on the web site dates from 4 August 2020.
I will not comment on these changes in the following list.

@metanorma/editors if there are non-content issues, please ping @Intelligent2013 or @opoudjis . Thanks!

Original comment file if the math units are unclear here:
Observations mep kilogram.xlsx

4 Instead of "La Brochure sur le SI", the text starts with "Ce document" adoc

From @opoudjis in #40 (comment)_:

That is deliberate by me, and I strongly urge us not to fix this. The boilerplate we are including in our generated documents is not intended just for the single document of the SI Brochure, but for all documents produced by BIPM. We cannot just insert the title of the document, because in French we don't know what the gender of the document title is (La brochure, but le rapport). And frankly, I do not believe that inserting the document title in the boilerplate is worth us adding a document title gender attribute.

This is not the desired behavior for the SI Brochure as requested by the BIPM.

There are potentially 3 solutions:

• The current version, which uses the generic "the document"
• Be doc-type specific, i.e. "the brochure"
• Be document title specific, just like for the SI Brochure.

Current:

Original:

MEP Candela Rapport (mep-candela-rapport.adoc)

1. bar is barely noticeable, especially when it is used on some capital letter in the stem expression, at least in Acrobat Reader in Widows OS.

Generated (200%):

Original (200%):

2. Too small space reserved for the terms in definition lists causes overlapping with definition.

3. Following note is not generated in chapter 5.1:

NOTE: The descriptor "photopic" is used only when quantities other than photopic are reported or discussed in the same document and there is a possibility of confusion.

Recommended values (https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-si-brochure/tree/bipm_corrections/sources/rec-values repo)

1. Too many blank pages are generated at the beginning of the documents.

In https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-si-brochure/blob/master/sources/sections-a1-en/04-cipm-1946.adoc (and in fr part also) [upperalpha] list breaks into two:

[upperalpha]
.. Definitions of the mechanical units which enter the definitions of electric units:
...
[upperalpha]
.. Definitions of electric units. The Comité International des Poids et Mesures (CIPM) accepts the following propositions which define the theoretical value of the electric units:

In the resulted PDF it renders as:

But second should be B as in source PDF:

Issues:

1. Stem expressions are not generated at all. The first example is shown in the following captures, where alpha and gamma are missing.

Original:

Generated:

Source ADOC:
(Rayons x et stem:[gamma], électrons), Section II (Mesure des radionucléides), Section III (Mesures neutroniques), Section IV (Étalons d’énergie stem:[alpha])

2. Cross-referencing should be fixed. I recall BIPM asked for adding the corresponding pages in cross-references, which is probably the reason why we have them in some places where they are not included in the original document.

However, I can see the word voir is showing in more than one place, due to markup + automatic addition of page numbers. Moreover, BIPM used keyword section in some places, chapitre in the others, while sometimes they didn't use any keyword. So my question is whether we should keep voir and/or section/ chapitre in the markup, or we agreed with BIPM on some standard which will be applied in all cases.

Original:

Generated:

From ADOC source:
_obligatoires_ (voir <<chapter5>>).

Original:

Generated:

From ADOC source:
(voir <<cls-236>>)

When the same ADOC syntax was used in the Introduction, page number was not included. I have already changed markup here because I thought it was wrong before seeing the other cross-references. Please let me know if I should revert the changes.

Original:

Generated:

I changed markup here to:
dans le texte «&nbsp;<<le_bipm_et_la_cdm>>&nbsp;» (page <<le_bipm_et_la_cdm,pagenumber%>>).

Another example where page number is not included in neither original nor generated PDF is shown below.

Original:

Generated:

From source ADOC:
(voir <<scls541>> pour une explication de la notation utilisée ici).

Moreover, should "voir" be italicized or not? Example from Appendix 1 of the original document is below. As far as I could see, "voir" was always italicized in Appendix 1, while that was not the rule in the rest of the brochure.

Original:

Generated:

3. Heading row of the ToC table in Appendix 1 is repeating at each page, probably because there was a blank line between it and the next table row. I removed that blank row. However, we still need word "page" to appear at the beginning of each new page.

Original:

Generated:

Note: I've already changed capital P to small p in "page" and made it boldfaced.

Questions/possible issues

1. Should we have the first line in the generated ToC?

Original:

Generated:

2. Do we need to show subsections for annexes in ToC? Do we need to add a dot after annex number?

Original:

Generated:

3. This was probably agreed with BIPM, but in order to double-check: should this example be a part of the main text, or it should be shown on the right margin, as in the original (ignore the fact that math expressions are not shown in generated PDF):

Original:

Generated:

4. Is there some reason why yellow-highlighted part was excluded?

Original:

Generated:

5. Titles are always boldfaced in our case. However, BIPM uses some kind of referencing in the titles, which applies the style which is generally used for papers of that type. I'm just noticing this as a difference, but don't know if that is a problem for BIPM team.

Original:

Generated:

6. Are we supposed to be using Greek letters for second level of items list?

Original:

Generated:

Note: Markup fixes are applied in #48.

From #24

In second level of unordered list, the dashes look exaggerated compared with the original version.

Generated

Original

From BIPM:

The largest number of comments is related to the use if italic or upright font. (in #50 #51 #52 #53)
In general, symbols for quantities are printed in italics, whereas symbols for units are in upright font.

Is it possible to textually encode some text in stem:[_v_ "ms"^{-2}] blocks so that the _v_ bit becomes italic?

@metanorma/editors if there are non-content issues, please ping @Intelligent2013 or @opoudjis . Thanks!

Original comment file if the math units are unclear here:
Observations mep kelvin.xlsx

Appendix 1 is a set of resolutions. https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/appendix1.html

We basically need to scrape all of those.

This ticket addresses remaining issues in BIPM SI brochure. When enhancements are implemented, we'll check outputs for BIPM files.

@metanorma/editors if there are non-content issues, please ping @Intelligent2013 or @opoudjis . Thanks!

Original comments file:
observations mep metre.xlsx

Appendix 2: https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/mises-en-pratique/

Note that appendix 2 is really a site! It contains 16 separate documents. We need to convert all of those. Perhaps we should split this task. The documents are not complex, though.

BIPM: possible to have footnotes (4) and (5) on page 55?

Our response:

Issue 97: from our previous discussion on footnotes and side notes, it is unfeasible to position them this way without breaking the other notes.

Appendix 4: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9-App4-EN.pdf

This was originally reported here: #41

Original:

Generated:

We're missing the page reference. This is a in-collection inter-document cross reference, pointing to the English version of the SI Brochure.

The source is:

En anglais, même lorsque la valeur d’une grandeur est utilisée comme adjectif, il convient
de laisser une espace entre la valeur numérique et le symbole de l’unité. Ce n’est que
lorsque l’on écrit le nom de l’unité en toutes lettres que l’on applique les règles
grammaticales ordinaires (voir un exemple en anglais page <<english-doc,anchor=english_example>>).

Semantic XML source:

<p id="_e9277bf0-ef2f-49f3-a909-bc97502c6052_si-brochure-fr">
  En anglais, m&#xEA;me lorsque la valeur d&#x2019;une grandeur est
  utilis&#xE9;e comme adjectif, il convient
  de laisser une espace entre la valeur num&#xE9;rique et le symbole de
  l&#x2019;unit&#xE9;. Ce n&#x2019;est que lorsque l&#x2019;on &#xE9;crit le nom
  de l&#x2019;unit&#xE9; en toutes lettres que l&#x2019;on applique les
  r&#xE8;gles grammaticales ordinaires (voir un exemple en anglais page
  <eref type="inline" bibitemid="english-doc_si-brochure-fr"
  citeas="si-brochure-en">
  <localityStack>
    <locality type="anchor">
      <referenceFrom>english_example</referenceFrom>
    </locality>
  </localityStack>
</eref>
  ).
</p>

I've verified that the generated bilingual XML does not contain this anchor english_example.

In the source where the anchor is used:

==== Quantity symbols and unit symbols

Unit symbols must not be used to provide specific information about the quantity
and should never be the sole source of information on the quantity. Units are never
qualified by further information about the nature of the quantity; any extra information
on the nature of the quantity should be attached to the quantity symbol and not to the unit symbol.

[[english_example]]
[NOTE]
====
For example: The maximum electric potential difference is stem:[ii(U)_("max") = 1000 " "rm(V)] 
but not stem:[ii(U) = 1000 " "rm(ii(V)_(max))]. The mass fraction of copper in the sample of
silicon is stem:[w("Cu") = 1.3 xx 10^(-6)] but not stem:[1.3 xx 10^(-6) " "rm(w)//rm(w)].
====

The generated Semantic XML of this clause is:

<clause id="_quantity_symbols_and_unit_symbols_si-brochure-en" obligation="normative">
  <title>Quantity symbols and unit symbols</title>
  <p id="_83bd03bb-6870-4189-be7b-04fba7b05d6c_si-brochure-en">
    Unit symbols must not be used to provide specific information about the
    quantity and should never be the sole source of information on the quantity.
    Units are never qualified by further information about the nature of the
    quantity; any extra information on the nature of the quantity should be
    attached to the quantity symbol and not to the unit symbol.
  </p>
  <note id="english_example_si-brochure-en">
    <p id="_3d63f17a-7388-401e-ae5b-6b368dac8415_si-brochure-en">
      For example: The maximum electric potential difference is
      <stem type="MathML">
      <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML">
        <msub>
          <mrow>

The note ID becomes english_example_si-brochure-en here, that's why the anchor is missing.

I noticed one particular equation looking weird:

* la transition optique non perturbée ^2^S~1/2~ stem:[(ii(F) = 0) – " "^2 ii(F)_(7//2) (ii(F) = 3," " m_"F" = 0)] de l’ion de ^171^Yb^+^, à la

Apparently it was encoded not as stem, probably due to the starting ^2^.

I noticed that in other places in the document we already have a solution, so will try if this works:

* la transition optique non perturbée stem:[text()^2"S"_(1//2) (ii(F) = 0) – " "^2 ii(F)_(7//2) (ii(F) = 3," " m_"F" = 0)] de l’ion de ^171^Yb^+^, à la

The table header cells seem to be have both a top line and also a bottom line, but we only want the top line if it's the first row.

1. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/mep/M-e-P_I2_532.pdf

https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-si-brochure/blob/master/sources/rec-values/mep-wgfs-nm532-I2.adoc

Original:
(a)

Output:
<img width="575" alt="Screen Shot 2021-01-07 at 3 02 15 PM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/11865/103862050-58185300-50f9-11eb-9772-e8a16e67bbc9.png">

[%unnumbered]
|===
| line no | transition h| comp. 2+h| stem:[f_(xy) = [ f(y , x) – f(a_(10), R(56) 32-0) \] // rm(kHz)]
| h| stem:[x] h| stem:[y] h| stem:[f_(xy)] h| stem:[u_c // rm(kHz)]

(b)

Output:

[%unnumbered]
|===
| transition | comp. 2+h| stem:[f_(xy) = [ f(y , x) – f(a_(10), "R(56) 32-0") \] // " "rm(kHz)] h| Ref.
h| stem:[x] h| stem:[y] h| stem:[f_(xy)] h| stem:[u_c // rm(kHz)] h|

(c)

Output:

[%unnumbered]
|===
| line no | transition | comp. 6+h| stem:[[ f(y , x) – f(a_(10)," R(56) 32-0)"\] // " "rm(kHz)]
h| h| stem:[x] h| stem:[y] h| <<ye1999>> h| <<zhang>> h| <<holzwarth>> h| <<nevsky>> h| unw. mean h| stem:[u // rm(kHz)]

2. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/mep/M-e-P_OsO4_10.3.pdf

Original:

Output:

[%unnumbered]
.stem:[ii(lambda) ~~ 10.3" "mu rm(m)" OsO"_4]
|===
| h| stem:[""^12 "C"^{16} "O"_2] 2+h| stem:[rm(OsO)_4] h| | | |
h| stem:[n] h| laser line h| line h| [isotope] h| [stem:[f_n − f {R(10)}] stem:[//rm(kHz)]] h| stem:[u_c] stem:[//rm(kHz)] h| [stem:[ f (rm(OsO)_{4})] stem:[−f (rm(CO)_{2}) //rm(kHz)]] h| stem:[u_c] stem:[//rm(kHz)]

from @ronaldtse for ToC, Appendix 1 and Appendix 4 both will not show subsections

https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9-App3-FR.pdf

Appendix 1: https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/appendix1.html

I'm getting this error with this:

bundle exec metanorma sources/mep-kelvin-definition-en.adoc

Error:

[relaton-bipm] ("BIPM SI Brochure") fetching...
bundler: failed to load command: metanorma (/Users/me/.rbenv/versions/2.6.5/lib/ruby/gems/2.6.0/bin/metanorma)
URI::InvalidURIError: bad URI(is not URI?): "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/relaton/relaton-data-bipm/master/data/si brochure.yaml"
  /Users/me/.rbenv/versions/2.6.5/lib/ruby/2.6.0/uri/rfc3986_parser.rb:67:in `split'
  /Users/me/.rbenv/versions/2.6.5/lib/ruby/2.6.0/uri/rfc3986_parser.rb:73:in `parse'
  /Users/me/.rbenv/versions/2.6.5/lib/ruby/2.6.0/uri/common.rb:234:in `parse'
  /Users/me/.rbenv/versions/2.6.5/lib/ruby/2.6.0/uri/common.rb:737:in `URI'
  /Users/me/.rbenv/versions/2.6.5/lib/ruby/gems/2.6.0/gems/relaton-bipm-1.5.0/lib/relaton_bipm/bipm_bibliography.rb:14:in `search'
  /Users/me/.rbenv/versions/2.6.5/lib/ruby/gems/2.6.0/gems/relaton-bipm-1.5.0/lib/relaton_bipm/bipm_bibliography.rb:39:in `get'

These seem to work:

[relaton-bipm] ("BIPM si-brochure") fetching...
[relaton-bipm] ("BIPM si-brochure") found si-brochure

I believe this is due to the keywords in "BIPM {...}". Maybe Relaton BIPM needs to be more robust.

Ping @andrew2net for help. Thanks!

From opoudjis #24 (comment):

@Intelligent2013 There's a lot of issues with keep-with-next, and they can be addressed in markup, for anything that's not a header; but headers need keep-with-next too, and I don't see that being observed in the Annex.

Example (Resolution X is 4th-level title):

I hoped that

<fo:table-row keep-with-next.within-page="always"...

solve this issue, but it's not working. Looks like it's not working when right column is row spanned.

Need to find a workaround solution...

Requested by @opoudjis

Update markup to use UnitsML symbols according to the table provided in https://github.com/plurimath/asciimath2unitsml

Appendix 3: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9-App3-EN.pdf