Restructure English Appendix 1 to utilize cgpm-resolutions about bipm-si-brochure HOT 5 OPEN

@ronaldtse, question please:

Is it necessary that the format of the restructured appendix match exactly with the original one?

For example, by comparing the first resolution (and obviating the rendering errors, metanorma/metanorma-standoc#346),

Original:

Restructured (using a yaml2text block):

There are some differences in the layout. Do they matter? Is it necessary to include the missing note? What happens with the resolutions that are in the yaml files but not in the original?
(In the case above, I could remove the first "considering " word from the paragraphs if you prefer.)

from bipm-si-brochure.

There are some differences in the layout. Do they matter?

Yes.

Is it necessary to include the missing note?

Yes.

What happens with the resolutions that are in the yaml files but not in the original?

Ignore them.

from bipm-si-brochure.

Besides from the fact that there are some additional resolutions in YAML (which are not included in Word), some of them are also missing. For example, there is no YAML file for CIPM 2001. YAML file for CIPM 2002 doesn't contain the content of Recommendation 1.

I recall some of the resolutions were missing in HTML (broken URLs). Probably this is the reason why they are also missing in YAML files.

Should we add the missing content based on what we have in Word and PDF versions of BIPM brochure?

from bipm-si-brochure.

Should we add the missing content based on what we have in Word and PDF versions of BIPM brochure?

@anermina Yes please!

I'm not sure what we should do with the Notes though, because they don't really belong to the resolution... maybe there could be an additional key for "additional notes added at {date}"?

from bipm-si-brochure.

@ronaldtse I added missing resolutions and recommendations, or missing parts of them. Notes aren't added yet.

Most of the notes are written in the following format:

However, we also have these:

For the latter case, we don't have the information about the date. Maybe we could add separate keywords, i.e. one for the note and the other for the year when the change was made?

At first I thought it would be the best to have these non-asterisk notes as footnotes, but it doesn't seem like a good solution in all cases:

And another thing... What we currently don't have in YAML files is yellow highlighted in the first image - reference written in small brackets, asterisk and the corresponding note.

That is actually this part of HTML version of the same resolution:

...which brings up the question about references.

We included references in the form of corresponding URLs in YAML files. Value of the key reference: cannot be used as such in order to produce (CR, 34 - 38) in this specific case. Do we need to create another keyword for this short name, in order to be able to reproduce the file correctly using yaml2text?

from bipm-si-brochure.