Updated VOTable 1.5 Working Draft

[Francois Ochsenbein]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for the changes, looks better with the \parksip removal — but
strangely a \parskip of about 2em seems to have been introduced, which
is likely the origin of the change in the number of overfull hboxes. It
should not be a problem, but in section 4.7 on page 18, the indentation
following the example (text starting by "both the single value of")
would better be removed (e.g. with a \noindent).

I also noticed a bit lately that the "eq_FK5" value of the "system"
attribute is quoted in 2 locations, in sections 3.1 (Example) and 3.4
(in the "equinox" attribute) — but since this value is deprecated, it
would better be replaced by the recommended "FK5" keyword.

Cheers, François

==> On 2023-11-09 14:18+0000,
    Tom Donaldson <tdonaldson at stsci.edu> wrote:

>Hi François and Markus,
>
>Thanks François for the detailed review and Markus for the comments.
>Based on this discussion I made the changes below and included them in
>pull request https://github.com/ivoa-std/VOTable/pull/50.  Please add
>your review comments to the PR or on this e-mail thread.
>
>- Updated the Appendix B title to say V1.5
>- Removed space from xtype="circle" in section 4.7
>- Explicitly listed current vocabularies for TIMESYS timescale and
>refposition
>- Removed \parindent=0pt to make paragraph breaks more apparent
>- Added reference to architecture figure in section 1.4 to encourage
>better placement of the figure
>
>In removing \parindent=0pt I noticed that we went from 35 to 32
>overfull hboxes. Though I'm not sure that's necessarily an
>improvement, I didn't notice any new display problems in the draft
>pdf. This look does seem consistent with a couple other docs I looked
>at (DataLink and TAP). Please have a look for yourself at the pdf
>artifact generated for this PR
>(
https://github.com/ivoa-std/VOTable/suites/18051624563/artifacts/1039567030
).
>
>Regarding whether some attributes of COOSYS should be mandatory to be
>consistent with TIMESYS, I've added a comment to issue 23
>(https://github.com/ivoa-std/VOTable/issues/23#issuecomment-1803341737),
>but still think we should maintain backward compatibility until
>version 2.0.
>
>Please comment that issue if clarification is needed. If you'd to add
>something to this version warning that certain attributes may become
>required, please suggest wording here on this PR.
>
>Thanks,
>Tom
>
>
>> On 11/7/23, 2:00 PM, "apps on behalf of Markus Demleitner"
>> <apps-bounces at ivoa.net <mailto:apps-bounces at ivoa.net> on behalf of
>> msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de
>> <mailto:msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi François,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 06:02:38PM +0100, Francois Ochsenbein wrote:
>>
>> > * section 3.5 (on TIMESYS): shouldn't the list of allowed timescale
>> > values be listed, as are the system COOSYS values? The same remark
>> >
>>
>> In principle, I'm not overly wild about in-document vocabularies;
>> vocabularies are designed to grow (and to have labels and
>> descriptions, without which they're not terribly useful). But you're
>> right, if we do it in one place, we should do it in the other, too.
>>
>> I'll leave it to the editor to decide whether or not to put it
>>
>> At the time or writing, this vocabulary includes the terms
>> % GENERATED: !vocterms timescale
>> % /GENERATED
>>
>> near the current line 809 and running make generate. For
>> TIMESYS/@refposition, I'd say there current cross reference to COOSYS
>> should be enough (or perhaps add "see there for a snapshot of the
>> defined values as of the release of this document.
>>
>> > applies on the list of refposition, listed for COOSYS, but not for
>> > TIMESYS (both share the same list). It looks also strange to me
>> > that the system attribute in COOSYS is optional, while the
>> > timescale attribute in TIMESYS is required — shouldn't this be
>> > harmonized ?
>>
>> Yes, it should. The question is how to do that. Making
>> COOSYS/@system mandatory will make some VOTables invalid, and we're
>> officially not supposed to do that in a minor version.
>>
>> I suppose it would be a reasonable and defendable policy if we said
>> now that we reserve the right not make it mandatory two minor
>> versions down the road or so.
>>
>> > And last, for the comfort in reading the document, some additional
>> > space between the paragraphs (the \parskip value) would be nice.
>>
>> Since VOTable sets
>>
>> \parindent=0pt
>>
>> (which, frankly, I'd probably drop if I were the editor) you are
>> right that discerning paragraphs is not always simple. Hence, having
>> a bit of parskip is indeed wise, and I'd totally go for
>>
>> \parskip=0.5ex
>>
>> -- that's also a lot less invasive than re-introducing the parskip
>> (which will probably result in overfull hboxes).
>>
>> -- Markus
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/apps/attachments/20231109/a9ffc051/attachment.htm>