search

metanorma / metanorma-gb

Metanorma processor for GB: write Chinese Standards using GbDoc
BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License
2 stars 3 forks source link

Remove document attribute `doctype` from asciidoctor-gb #71

Closed ronaldtse closed 6 years ago

ronaldtse commented 6 years ago

The IsoDoc doctype attribute is superseded by the GB combination of:

:scope: The scope of the GB standard (national, sector, professional, local, enterprise). Defaults to national.

:mandate: The mandate of the GB standard (mandatory, recommended, guidelines). Defaults to mandatory.

It is currently inherited from asciidoctor-iso, but we should remove the doctype attribute from asciidoctor-gb.

opoudjis commented 6 years ago

I disagree that doctype is overridden by scope + mandate; I think it is only mandate.

Cf in ISO:

BibItemType |=
     "international-standard" | "technical-specification" |
     "technical-report" | "publicly-available-specification" |
    "international-workshop-agreement" | "guide"

And in CSD:

BibItemType |= "governance" | "standard" | "guide"

I don't see why we need 5*3 types, when we're already encoding scope anyway; only mandate is comparable to the other standards.

I propose: standard (for "mandatory), recommendation (for "recommended"), "guidelines"

ronaldtse commented 6 years ago

I'm not suggesting we do 5*3 types -- I'm saying that we already have mandate and scope so we don't need doctype anymore.

Are you proposing we re-purpose the ISO BibItemType terms when used with GB for GB mandate like this mapping?

ISO GB
"international-standard" => "standard" "standard"
"guide" "guidelines"
?? "recommendation"
  1. Semantically both GB, GB/T prefixes designate "standards" though.
  2. What is "??" then?
opoudjis commented 6 years ago

Well, that's what I thought you wanted, and that would make "recommendation" a new standard type. But if you're ok to stick with "standard" and "guide", that's fine by me. But we do need a doctype value to put into bibdata.

ronaldtse commented 6 years ago

Sure, let's go with it then. New "recommendation" is good with me. I wonder if we should just rename "international-standard" to "standard", since an ISO "standard" is by definition an "international-standard" anyway.

I'm not sure if the meaning of ISO "guide" is identical to "guidelines"?

opoudjis commented 6 years ago

No, the wording "international standard" is prescribed by ISO, so we should not change it there.