Perform comparison between English and French documents to ensure their content structures are identical about bipm-si-brochure HOT 6 CLOSED

Structure of the converted appendices 3 and 4 is matching.
Appendix 2 is available only in English.
We'll compare French and English Appendix 1 and the rest of the document.

I have just one note for appendices 3 and 4: there are some minor markup differences between the original documents. They are listed below. Of course, this doesn't have any impact on the rules for BIPM flavor.

1. Difference: English version didn't have a proper form for some equations.

Action: Changed EN to match FR.

EN example:

FR example:

2. Difference: Subscript was missing in English version.

Action: Changed EN to match FR.

EN example:

FR example:

from bipm-si-brochure.

Appendix 1 contains a specific ToC, which not only consists of section titles and corresponding page numbers, rather also a short description of each meeting. This was converted in English version, but not in French one. Should we have this ToC converted to Metanorma or not?

Sample from the original document:

from bipm-si-brochure.

Documents have been compared and their structures match now. Changes have been made in #21 .

Additionally, I've noticed following differences between original documents:

1. Missing note in French version (section 5):

Action: None.

EN:

FR:

2. Missing symbol omega in French version (section 5):

Action: Changed FR to match EN.

EN:

FR:

from bipm-si-brochure.

Have sought clarification from BIPM and will revert here.

from bipm-si-brochure.

From BIPM:

1. SI Brochure Section 5. The highlighted English note is missing in French.

Proposed action: add a French note that matches the missing English note.
The note in the English version explains a particularity of English grammar. It is not needed for the French text.

English:

French:

2. SI Brochure Section 5. Missing “Omega” in French.

Yes, an omega needs to be inserted in the French text. We have corrected this already a few days ago in the new version 1.08 which is now published, together with a small number of other editorial corrections. Once we have the final XML file and have learned the basics of XML we should be able to apply the same corrections in the XML file.

3. Minor markup differences in Appendices 3 and 4.

Proposed action: Fix the English.
Yes :
L > approx. 5 cd m^(-2)
L < approx. 10-3 cd m^(-2)

English:

French:

Missing subscripts in English.

No, in BIPM publications we generally do not write the “th” as subscript. I can’t explain you why.

English:

French:

from bipm-si-brochure.

This has been solved. Closing.

from bipm-si-brochure.