Review from BIPM to be addressed about bipm-si-brochure HOT 35 CLOSED

@manuel489 FYI

3. Resolution titles font size in Appendix 1 are larger that their parent clauses. (And they are not centered neither.)

Fixed:

from bipm-si-brochure.

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.

Have sought clarification for this because the font seems identical.

New file:

Old file:

from bipm-si-brochure.

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

Fixed.

> Page 4: ISBN number is missing

Source XML issue. ISBN should be determined in the feedback-statement element or in a separate element

  <feedback-statement>
    <p id="_43be9891-fb8f-487e-939d-c7b6cdc163bf">BIPM<br/>
      Pavillon de Breteuil<br/>
      F-92312 SГЁvres<br/>
      Cedex<br/>
      FRANCE</p>
  </feedback-statement>

> Page 5: wrong title “Résumé” instead of “Le BIPM et la Convention du Mètre »

Source xml issue:

<abstract id="_le_bipm_et_la_convention_du_mètre"><title>Résumé</title><p id="_fe6dc838-cb21-4d8e-9994-2905eb0143df">Le Bureau international...

> Page 5: The list of member states in the margin begins too low and extends over two pages

There was issue with list level notes, fixed.

> Page 5: The dots are missing in the list following the third paragraph

Fixed.

> Page 5: Much too large vertical space before the second list of bullet points

For displaying first long side note in abstract I've changed algorithm for displaying it especially for brochure abstract. It may have side effect as described here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64107954/how-to-vertical-align-text-bottom-for-long-table-in-xsl-fo if text will be changed in the future.

> Page 5: Dots are missing in the second list

Fixed.

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

Fixed.

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

Fixed.

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

I don't see it at my computer. I need a clarification. Could you attach a screenshot?

> Page 9: All decisions of Annex 1 are listed separately

I need a difference in xml markup between decisions of Annex 1 and other level-2 sections (See Annexe 4, for example 'L’évolution historique de la réalisation des unités du SI')

> Page 9: Annex 5 does not exist

Source xml issue. In the source PDF there isn't Annex 5, but there is a standalone section 'Liste des sigles utilisés dans le présent volume'.

> Page 12: The four paragraphs on the annexes 1 to 4 should be moved to the left.

In source xml issue these paragraph are usual paragraphs.

> Page 12: In the original, the note has two paragraphs, the space has disappeared

Fixed.

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

Fixed.

> Page 15: The notes in the margin should be vertically aligned with the top of the corresponding paragraph

Fixed.

> Page 15: In the second note in the margin the subscripts “-1” are too big

Xslt can't manage font-size for concrete element in mathml markup. May be jEuclid issue.

> Page 15: In the same note, the minus sign in the parentheses should be a superscript (-)

Source xml issue. Should be enclosed in sup:

<p id="_1d7212a3-cdbc-4cd7-ac9c-d2c77de41420">Les quotients des unités SI peuvent être exprimés par une barre oblique (/) ou un exposant négatif (<sup>−</sup>).</p>

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

Source xml issue. Looks like these are copy-pasted values.

> Page 17: the note in the margin is at the wrong place. It should be aligned with table 2 on the following page

Fixed.

> Page 17: The second part of this note, starting with “La commission…” is completely out of place. It belongs to page 29 (of the original)

Fixed.

> Page 17: The note following table 2 should not be there, it is a duplication of the note in the margin.

In the current version of XSLT, all table's notes display under the table only.

Latest PDFs:
collection.presentation.pdf
collection.presentation_en.pdf
collection.presentation_fr.pdf

from bipm-si-brochure.

I am updating @Intelligent2013 with the latest generated brochure source XML, but he was up to date already. I am removing the issues he has already deem resolved:

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. Possibly invalid

Page 4: ISBN number is missing

Source XML issue. ISBN should be determined in the feedback-statement element or in a separate element

  <feedback-statement>
    <p id="_43be9891-fb8f-487e-939d-c7b6cdc163bf">BIPM<br/>
      Pavillon de Breteuil<br/>
      F-92312 SГЁvres<br/>
      Cedex<br/>
      FRANCE</p>
  </feedback-statement>

Page 5: wrong title “Résumé” instead of “Le BIPM et la Convention du Mètre »

Source xml issue:

<abstract id="_le_bipm_et_la_convention_du_mètre"><title>Résumé</title><p id="_fe6dc838-cb21-4d8e-9994-2905eb0143df">Le Bureau international...

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

Page 9: All decisions of Annex 1 are listed separately

I need a difference in xml markup between decisions of Annex 1 and other level-2 sections (See Annexe 4, for example 'L’évolution historique de la réalisation des unités du SI')

@Intelligent2013, I need clarification on this from you

Annex 5 does not exist

Source xml issue. In the source PDF there isn't Annex 5, but there is a standalone section 'Liste des sigles utilisés dans le présent volume'.

Page 12: The four paragraphs on the annexes 1 to 4 should be moved to the left.

In source xml issue these paragraph are usual paragraphs.

Page 15: In the second note in the margin the subscripts “-1” are too big

Xslt can't manage font-size for concrete element in mathml markup. May be jEuclid issue.

In the same note, the minus sign in the parentheses should be a superscript (-)

Source xml issue. Should be enclosed in sup:

<p id="_1d7212a3-cdbc-4cd7-ac9c-d2c77de41420">Les quotients des unités SI peuvent être exprimés par une barre oblique (/) ou un exposant négatif (<sup>−</sup>).</p>

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

Source xml issue. Looks like these are copy-pasted values.

Page 17: The note following table 2 should not be there, it is a duplication of the note in the margin.

In the current version of XSLT, all table's notes display under the table only.

from bipm-si-brochure.

Page 9: All decisions of Annex 1 are listed separately

I need a difference in xml markup between decisions of Annex 1 and other level-2 sections (See Annexe 4, for example 'L’évolution historique de la réalisation des unités du SI')

@Intelligent2013, I need clarification on this from you

@opoudjis In the source/original PDF, only Annexe 4 has a sub-sectionss in ToC:

In the source XML there isn't a difference in the structure of Annexe 1 and 4 and I can't determine in which case I should show sub-section in ToC and when not:

Annexe 1:

<annex id="_décisions_de_la_cgpm_et_du_cipm"
     		obligation="normative">
		<title>
			<strong>Annexe 1</strong>.<tab/>
			<strong>Décisions de la CGPM et du CIPM</strong>
		</title>
		...
		<clause id="_1re_cgpm_1889"
      			obligation="normative">
			<title depth="2">1.1.<tab/>1<sup>re</sup> CGPM, 1889</title>

Annexe 4:

<annex id="_notes_historiques_sur_lévolution_du_système_international_dunités_et_ses_unités_de_base"
     		obligation="normative">
		<title>
			<strong>Annexe 4</strong>.<tab/>
			<strong>Notes historiques sur l’évolution du Système international d’unités et ses unités de base</strong>
		</title>
		<clause id="_lévolution_historique_de_la_réalisation_des_unités_du_si"
      			obligation="normative">
			<title depth="2">4.1.<tab/>L’évolution historique de la réalisation des unités du SI</title>

from bipm-si-brochure.

Page 9: All decisions of Annex 1 are listed separately

I know why they have done this, because there is a separate ToC for Annexe 1, but this inconsistency is so inane, I would rather we just not give them subsections under either. Introducing markup in Metanorma to say "have n levels of subsections for the ToC for Annex 1, but m levels of subsections for the ToC for Annex 4" is something we should NOT be putting into documents. @ronaldtse I will not implement this unless forced to.

from bipm-si-brochure.

Page 4: ISBN number is missing

metanorma/metanorma-standoc#359

Implemented as //bibdata/docidentifier[@type = 'ISBN']

from bipm-si-brochure.

Page 5: wrong title “Résumé” instead of “Le BIPM et la Convention du Mètre »

This section has been marked up as an abstract, and Metanorma policy is that abstract titles must be supplied, else they are not actually abstracts. I decree that in this instance they are not actually abstracts, and will change markup to generic preface section.

from bipm-si-brochure.

Annex 5 does not exist

And indeed, the Metanorma document model does not provide for randomly putting an abbreviations section after appendixes, as BIPM has seen fit to do. In https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf. the glossary is treated as a separate annex.

I am not changing the document model of Metanorma and its 15 SDOs to indulge an exception that the BIPM does not even maintain consistently within its own documents. The abbreviations shall be an annex, I will just need to remove the "Annex" label from it by marking it up as unnumbered.

from bipm-si-brochure.

It may be easier to encode it properly as a table of contents section.

from bipm-si-brochure.

Since it is not a table of contents section that is missing the Annex label but an abbreviations section, that is irrelevant.

Unnumbered sections are appalling practice in a standards document, and a very dangerous precedent: we should heavily discourage their use, including with BIPM.

from bipm-si-brochure.

Page 12: The four paragraphs on the annexes 1 to 4 should be moved to the left.

They mean indent (i.e. "move right".)

Metanorma uses semantic markup. It does not support indent. Metanorma is not Microsoft Word, to support random semantically ill-defined formatting, nor shall it become so.

Indentation is semantically justified by blockquote, which this is not, or by types of admonition, which this is not, or by lists.

Unless BIPM can provide a principled semantic semantic justification for an alternative, this shall be treated as an unordered list. Because clearly that's what this is. Changing markup accordingly.

There may be the temptation to introduce an aesthetically motivated class of bulletless lists. This temptation should be resisted.

from bipm-si-brochure.

Page 15: In the same note, the minus sign in the parentheses should be a superscript (-)

Was correct in English text; fixed in French text.

from bipm-si-brochure.

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

Was correct in English text; fixed in French text.

from bipm-si-brochure.

Page 17 issue with table marginal note has been addressed.

from bipm-si-brochure.

So, of the comments made by BIPM, we are currently declining to fix the following:

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.

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

Alex cannot see this in his PDF.

Page 9: All decisions of Annex 1 are listed separately

Having tables of contents have different depths for different annexes is beyond the capability of Word, and we assume that BIPM are only achieving it by stitching together different Word documents. And while Annex 1 has its own ToC, it is a thematic ToC rather than a hierarchical one reflecting the order of clauses in the document. While it is easy enough to signal it as an arbitrary attribute on clauses, it is a bad idea for consistency, and we would recommend against it.

Page 12: The four paragraphs on the annexes 1 to 4 should be moved to the left.

They have been converted to a list. Metanorma does not support semantically unmotivated indentation, and a list is the closest there is to a semantically justified indentation.

Page 15: In the second note in the margin the subscripts “-1” are too big

PDF Xslt can't manage font-size for concrete element in mathml markup. May be jEuclid issue.

Am updating Presentation XML and sending to @Intelligent2013 to render.

from bipm-si-brochure.

@ronaldtse is querying the necessity for a configurable ToC depth on clauses.

from bipm-si-brochure.

@Intelligent2013 once the issues are all done can you help provide the latest PDFs? Thanks.

from bipm-si-brochure.

@ronaldtse Latest PDFs:
collection.presentation.pdf
collection.presentation_fr.pdf
collection.presentation_en.pdf

from bipm-si-brochure.

Ok, I'm checking the PDF files provided by @Intelligent2013.
I'll be publishing any possible issue in separate tickets.

from bipm-si-brochure.

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)

from bipm-si-brochure.

Right. The math expressions are going to be vulnerable to the different maths rendering engines that their PDF and our PDF have used. Our PDF also might not have fixed line spacing...

from bipm-si-brochure.

@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.

from bipm-si-brochure.

I have posted some tickets about some potential issues I noticed. Nonetheless, there are other ones that I didn't include because they seemed obvious and yet BIPM did not complain about them. These are:

1. Vertical space between clauses and sub-clauses is larger compared to original
2. Horizontal space between table numbering and table subtitle is larger than original.
3. Resolution titles font size in Appendix 1 are larger that their parent clauses. (And they are not centered neither.)

from bipm-si-brochure.

@ronaldtse You make the strategic call: my suggestion is that we may fix formatting to be perfect match, as with the minor issues @manuel489 raises, but that it should not be priority, given how much there is to do in general. The idiosyncrasies of BIPM in general are going to be onerous to maintain anyway, and need to be strategically resolved; spacing and size, by contrast, are easy fixes.

from bipm-si-brochure.

I agree. Let's see how far @Intelligent2013 can push.

from bipm-si-brochure.

So the remaining issues are:

• Vertical gap caused by notes positioning in metanorma/mn-native-pdf#268
• Odd display of math font in Acrobat Reader #30

from bipm-si-brochure.

In Appendix 1 (SI-Brochure-9.pdf) there is a difference between list styles a) vs (a):
in French (page 73), see a) as list label in the text body:

in English (page 181), see (a) as list label in the text body:

But in metanorma/metanorma-bipm#32 they noticed Page 6: in the original text, lists were not numbered but had letters (a), (b), (c), …

We should exactly determine the format of list-labels.

from bipm-si-brochure.

Thanks @Intelligent2013 , I have sought BIPM for clarification as described here: metanorma/metanorma-bipm#32 (comment)

from bipm-si-brochure.

Thanks @Intelligent2013 , I have sought BIPM for clarification as described here: metanorma/metanorma-bipm#32 (comment)

Issue resolved.

Vertical gap caused by notes positioning in metanorma/mn-native-pdf#268: resolved.

#30: open but unassigned. No reason to keep this issue open.

from bipm-si-brochure.

This issue will be kept open until BIPM reviews the results. @opoudjis says we will have them prepared by 2020-11-09.

from bipm-si-brochure.

Updated PDF:

collection.pdf

from bipm-si-brochure.

Please don't submit the generated file to BIPM yet. I've noticed some issues and will report them as soon as I finish re-checking the document.

from bipm-si-brochure.

I opened a new issue #47 to address the noticed differences for French part of the brochure. @opoudjis @Intelligent2013 @ronaldtse @manuel489 , please check. Thank you!

from bipm-si-brochure.

This issue will be kept open until BIPM reviews the results. @opoudjis says we will have them prepared by 2020-11-09.

I think we can close this issue now. We have opened new ones after receiving comments from BIPM and they were discussed in separate tickets.

from bipm-si-brochure.