Thank you, Candice. Thank you, Candice. And I believe you'll be putting the URL of the handout out there too, right? So all right, let's get underway then. This is a follow-on, whether or not, from what I did a month or two ago, which was the general idea of writing a formal spec. But this is where the target audience is particularly ISO for publication. And so the handout is extensive, and the set of slides is taken directly from that handout, and so we'll just pick out some of the salient points. So just to get some terminology straight, we have ISO, the International Standards Organization, which we're talking about today. We have the Electrotechnical Commission, and then we have them together where they actually publish joint standards, and then they actually have a joint technical committee called JDC-1. And so it can be a little bit confusing with the acronyms, but JDC-1 is where many, not all, but most of the IT-related standards we know out there are available, but some are ISO standards, some are IEC standards, some are joint. The thing is is that the publication arm for all of these groups is the ISO Central Secretariat. So when we say we have an ISO standard and we have requirements for publication, we mean the rules as set down by the ISO Secretariat, which is in fact charged with editing and publishing or getting ready for publication. Now the most important thing here, which it may be changing. There have been threats over the years, but essentially, unless you have an exemption, whatever that may mean, submissions need to be in Microsoft Word, preferably using a particular template. So if you're listening in today, then either you're committed to go down the ISO publishing route or you're seriously considering it, but I'm going to raise some questions and potential red flags through today that might make you question that or to try to find other answers, which I am not able to give you, on the suitability of doing that based on the process and some other requirements. But certainly requiring something to be in Word, if that is not your current medium for developing things and you've got existing large and non-trivial complexity of a specification, that definitely is a consideration we'll be revisiting throughout today. Now the handout itself is actually written using the basic simple template that ISO provides. It's one of a number of things, but I figured it makes sense to present to you a document that actually uses the requirements in terms of the standards for better or for worse. And so keep that in mind as you're actually looking at the handout itself. Now there are two governing documents and that control what is allowed or required or allowed inside of a formal ISO spec. The first is ISO IC Directives Part 2 and there's a URL for that in the handout. That's 100 pages long, at least the one I looked at this morning. In the last year or two, they've also chosen to finally publish their style guide, which are certainly most important because it previously was not public and so it was hard to comply with something when you didn't know what it was and you've got different conflicting answers. So that's about 40 odd pages. So to think about it, OK, I'm going to write according to some rules, but I've got 140 pages of rules, makes it a fairly foreboding sort of a task there. There's a lot of detail there and complexities and various kinds of things and it can be hard to find something as a late person coming in at the light end and over 30 something years of trying to understand these things, I've distilled a bunch of very important things in the handout, which I'll cover in this presentation. So when you have such a comprehensive set of style guides and you have a committee, a standing committee, charged with maintaining that, you have some sort of a bureaucracy involved there as well. Now, the table of contents, we'll just scroll down here. My intent is to go through it serially, touching on sort of the important bits in each of these categories. And then section eight is in fact where lots of the nuts and bolts are for the specific editorial issues. And then nine, which talks about some of the downsides of things. And so we'll spend most of our time getting up to that eight, but then we'll touch on some important aspects there for you to think more about the implications. So again, if you don't have a spec written, that's an OK position to be in because you don't have to go and undo anything or redo. But if you've got something written and if it's substantial and complex and uses styles or other things, or if indeed it's being developed outside of word, then a lot of these things will have some non-trivial impact on that whole process and may well adversely affect the decision about is this the route you want to go. So let's then kick off with just some introduction. So the publications we're talking about fall into two categories. They are standards or their technical reports or TRs. A standard is a normative thing that is used to compliance and validation and testing and procurement and these kinds of things. A technical report, there are a couple of flames of them, but those are information that's, by the way, here's some interesting things. Here's a study, here's some background statistics, these kinds of things. It could contain a test version of something. We are thinking about making this major breaking change to an existing standard. We'd like to float it out there to the public to get some feedback. So it's not a requirement, but it could have a variety of purposes out there. So you should know about that because the rules for writing one of those are essentially the same as for a standard. And when you're doing a multi-part standard, some of the parts could be standards and some of them could be technical reports or they could all be standards or all technical reports. So keep that in mind in terms of the organization. Now these are required to have the layout as specified. And if you're a past submitter, which I think if you attended on Tuesday when Seth spoke, you'll know more about that, you typically have some latitude with the first edition. We are bringing a spec in from another organization that has previously published it, but typically long-term you're expected for each new edition to then start to comply with these particular set of rules. And the most important thing here to understand is the model that ISO uses is the printed page. Ultimately, when the dust is settled, you've got a PDF that will be published by them. And so the world to them looks like a printed page, which is not how it looks for many of us in our general usage and certainly for documentation and things like that. And so when you're dealing with things like developing documentation in GitHub and various other tools, then how does one get it into a paginated form and what are the implications of that? So a year ago, I worked on a project through Linux Foundation that in fact is a website and that's how they have it. That's how they wanna keep it and that's how they want their standard version to appear. So clearly that's not a suitable candidate for submission to ISO because it's not gonna be in the form of a paginated document. So then the purpose of the document and this presentation today is to give you practical information about the compliance issues in particular here and to point out some of the things that you need to pay particular attention to. All right, so that's the end of just a general introduction. Do we have any general questions there for me? Nothing in the chat, Rex. Thank you. All right, now it's important to understand the process that they use because it has changed in recent years. It used to be entirely people-based. You sent stuff to them by email or uploaded to a website. They manually went through and did things and they could cut you a lot of slack because there wasn't any software monitoring and blocking any particular current construct. So if something got through that didn't comply to the rules and nobody noticed, well it got through. That is now not so much the case. They have some sort of a suite of tools which involves conversion to XML and I've never seen any document. They don't seem to be sharing what that process involves. And then the generation of that XML back to PDF for publication and they finish up with a new Word document. So they start with the Word document you submit. It goes off into some other world and then comes back as a newly reformatted Word document with white space, various all kinds of things are manipulated around there and it's doing an extensive amount of checking and potentially rejecting certain constructs and things that it discovers that either outside of the rules or their features in Word, for example, that they do not support such as tables within tables and we'll talk about a little bit later. And also, ISO editors might manually make formatting changes to this throughout the process. So you basically push it in one end and it's not until it comes out the other end that you have some chance of getting feedback. And so at that point, so the important aspect there, I am not aware of any facility online, a testbed where you as a prospective submitter could go and grab a draft copy of your spec and no matter how small it is, push it through the tool process and get back the feedback to say, how am I doing? Am I using constructs that I haven't learned and not allowed or some other kinds of things? That would be a very valuable tool and seems to be ought to exist out there but I've not heard of such a thing and we'll talk later about how you won't find out what's rejected until way into the process. So when you finally get back from ISO, a draft spec for proofing, then you need to actually go through that Word document and do a diff with the one that you submitted. Every time I've done that, I found errors that were introduced either in content by naive editing changes at ISO or formatting where their tool has taken something very technically important and has reformatted it and that's unacceptable for the spec. And so you definitely need to know what that tool is, you need to look at it and compare it mechanically certainly for non-trivial size and complex documents. The ISO editors are unlikely to be subject matter experts in your field. In an hour ago, they were doing an undersea welding standard and in two hours they'll be doing carbon footbridge standards for airlines and in between they've got a standard for a computer programming language. So basically when you're communicating with them, you have to come up with abstractions and try to explain without getting into the particular technicalities of your subject matter area. Now, once you submit and you get into the ballot process called a draft international standard ballot, you'll get comments back, which you may have to make changes to fix to get or keep a majority of that. And that is an iterative process. And so that all happens before you submit anything to ISO. So you are basically right down to the end of the process when you actually submit your first or a new addition to ISO before they get involved, run it through their tools and give you that kind of feedback. You don't have a mechanism easily up front to say, hey, where can I send comments or can I talk to other users like myself? It seems to me that ISO should definitely have a website and some kind of a chat room or facility where at the very least people can exchange information and they can provide answers to things that you can look at over time when you're trying to figure out some particular aspect of things. And so I have not seen any of that available. So it's rather an interesting process where there are a lot of rules, the implications of which you don't necessarily understand until very late in the stage. So this is now you can see very large print here because this is I think a very stunning slash shocking comment. So the ISO editor assigned your project is unlikely to have ever been on a committee that actually produced a specification as such they haven't experienced the process from the other side that is from outside where we're developing it. When I attended a project editor's conference 10 or 12 years ago in Geneva and I was there as a representative as an editor of a four part standard totaling 6,500 pages, clearly a very large and unusual thing. And when I said what was the average length of an ISO standard and they thought for a bit and they sent around 50 pages. So as you can imagine, managing a much larger and complex specification can require a greater understanding of the real world issues resulting from size and complexity. So most of the work I've done in standards has been computer programming languages and platforms with large libraries and easily start at 5,600 pages and go into the thousands. And that's certainly a lot of the work of ISO, IEC, JVC-1, which is all the IT specs and security and other kinds of things. And so if ISO comes back to you and says, oh, I'm sorry, you haven't got the right format for your section headings, you need to change those. If you've got a 50, 10, 20, 50 page standard, sure, in an hour you could do that. But when you've got hundreds and thousands of pages and literally hundreds and thousands of section headings, that is not a trivial task to do. So that's what I mean about their rules are written around this whole experience of managing small documents. And so I can assure you that the frustration rate for me personally is very high as a result of that dealing with large and complex documents. And so that's simply about the actual, the test bed and the environment they have that they now use. And by the way, it can't handle documents beyond a certain unknown size and complexity, including the 6,500 page one I mentioned. And when I was retired from that project, they still hadn't decided how they were gonna deal with it, even though they've dealt with it manually for a three or four editions previously. Right, any questions on number two? No questions in the chat, Riggs. All right, so now what comes out of the ISO process is a Word document. And while they almost certainly intend that's what you use as the basis for the next one, that is not a requirement. And there are reasons I'll point out why that is in fact undesirable or in fact quite impossible. Firstly, there are good reasons why editors choose a particular document management tool over another.  It's not allowed in the tool chain. There are plenty of people who are now moving towards collaborative editing through things like GitHub with Markdown. And that's where all of my work has been moved in recent years. And so then you have this interesting issue that yes, ISO gives me back a document which they're then gonna distill the PDF and publish. But now I have to go through and figure out what all the changes were and reapply it to my non-Word master base copy. So if you wish to continue using a non-Word platform you have to determine all the changes that were made by ISO to the submitted spec and then apply them to your own base. And then of course you'll convert at some later point again. And so the point out too that error is that we're somewhat introduced or not handled properly during that final distillation phase. So the lesson here is that the document you get back from ISO while that certainly will serve as them to use for publication might not be suitable for use as the base of your next addition. And you need to understand the implications of that. Quite, it's a very strong thing to state and to note. Right, questions, anything on that? Right, so then, all right, now let's get some terminology down. So a chapter, so if you've got a standard it's typically at least more than one chapter because you're required to have a scope at terms and definitions and some other entries. Each of those things is called a clause. So you think of that as a book chapter. What's below that at the next level is a sub clause like 1.2, 3.5 and then some clauses can nest. So <IP_ADDRESS>.5, et cetera. And you again have to think about the number of levels that you wanna use for a large and complex document I've had up to six levels. That will have direct impact on things like the table of contents. For example, the 4,500 page part of my ISO standard I used to edit, when all the levels were switched on generated a table of contents of a hundred pages which is twice the size of most ISO standards. So clearly that's interesting and fairly shocking to the ISO editors to think about documents that large and complex. Yet if you are forced for whatever reason to reduce the level of entries in the table of contents say to three then how can you actually get to the rest of the entries without browsing down through a large document? And so I'm jumping ahead a little here but the fact is word allows you to put table of contents all throughout the document. So you could have top level table of contents at three levels and in the third level entries you can have table of contents for the fourth and fifth and sixth levels. I have never gotten an answer from ISO whether their tool will recognize or allow nested table of contents but based on my experience with the things they don't allow I doubt very much they do. So you need to know about that in advance when you're structuring your document. Is it a one big document? Are there multiple documents? Breaking it into multiple documents gives you the problem is there's no way to do inter document links and have them be correlated automatically. All kinds of interesting issues there. Now an appendix something that started to be led at ABC coming after all of the clauses is an annex and annexes can have some clauses. So A.1, A.1.2.3. And then the other important term here is that there are two kinds of content. There is normative content. We spoke about that in my first webinar that is the things that have the word shall and shall not and how does one tell whether one has conformed to it? How could I write a test suite? How could somebody look at my product and description and check the boxes for procurement? And then there are things that are not normative which are either called non-normative or informative and that's important because they have to be typeset differently and that's a whole interesting world of itself if you're coming safe and get up which doesn't have that distinction. So then any questions on terminology? All right, now, so how does one get into the first version of the spec assuming that we don't have an exemption and we're going to make it work? Well, as I said, if you're starting from scratch well, you grab one of the templates and you start dropping in the text, all right? So that's the cleanest and simplest. You've got an existing specification in Word but it does not use the template and you use that. Of course, there'll be glitches because of styles and things but that would be your starting point. You might have an existing specification in some other format and you can copy and paste blocks of text into the word template that you start with and apply its styles and clearly that may work for a bulk of it depending on how smart the copy-paste mechanism is on your source format as to whether preserves things like bold and things that Talix varies other kinds of formatting that you particularly want. Well, finally, you can actually have an existing spec in some non-word format and programmatically generate the Word document to try to preserve as many as possible of the attributes and one way is through Pandoc. So if you're not familiar with that I've used Pandoc to convert from Markdown and GitHub to Word for the purposes of submission to ISO and I've written about that privately at least in reports to my clients about how good a job it can do and there definitely were issues in dealing with styles in there. So, and I just in the last couple of days Jory and I've learned about a whole new open source project out there that apparently is quite large and active which I've never heard of before called MetaNorma. So maybe Jory if you're available you could drop that something a link to that. There's certainly a website MetaNorma and there's a GitHub open source site for that. And they actually claim to be a major supporter of developing stuff outside of Word but to make it go to Word in ISO. So, while some flexibility appears to be allowed you won't know for certain until you try and get back from ISO approved after it's been submitted and that's just to reinforce what we said earlier that it would be nice to know if you're running off the rails as early as possible in the process but if you've got a non-trivial spec of hundreds or more pages and to find out at the very last bit that you have to go back and do major surgery that certainly is where's the budget and the time and at that point the technical people on the project are tired of proofing it and so there's all kinds of interesting issues there. So, I don't think we need to pause there for any questions. So then, let's take a look at some of the ISO requirements. So, having used Word for many, many years I fell in love with soft returns which inhibit basically bad line or bad page breaks and things and there are places where they are really necessary as in item two here but the fact is they're tooling does not appear to preserve them and so this is one reason why what comes out the other end is not necessarily useful as a starting document even if you wish to continue maintaining the spec in Word. So, understand about soft returns and how useful they can be. In fact, you need to know how to use them to write an annex because you have to have a multi-line header for annexes unlike clauses which says about whether it's normative or not along with the title and you have to make that a single physical line that actually is split over two display lines and the only way to do that is with a soft return and so there's a little homework for you. The terms and definitions clause and we'll may see some of those later also require this because you have a term like 1.3 followed by a bolded term followed by a description and from a pagination point of view you want all of those three lines to be on the same page not to basically break across bad page breaks but it's not entirely clear to me that after the ISO tools run on it they can guarantee that if they're not preserving this. So, even their published PDF might not look so pleasing from a publishing point of view and so if they tell you well, we're going to insert hard new page things in there that's a red flag because that's definitely, that's using a typewriter not a word processor and that's basically something else and if they do that you have to remove those from the final word because you don't want them there for your own things as pagination will change. Styles, right so in theory, they want that all the terms and definitions to be spelled out up front well, that's fine for 20, 30 page document it's not fine for a 500 page document where you've got 20 or 50 core terms and then you've got in each of the major some divisions on your spec you've got 50 or 100 terms you would like to introduce them as you go there's no way to do that and the very standard way of English publishing of doing that is to italicize the first usage of the term in such conditions is not in fact permitted and we'll talk more about the fact how ISO has a bunch of rules that when you're publishing in English do not actually comply with English publication standards as used in the UK and the British Commonwealth and that to me is just a major disconnect. So right justification the spec is required to be right justified and I've got an example taken directly out of the spec that shows you what it will look like and you said, oh my God, that's nasty and so they do allow you to override that in certain cases but the thing is what does their tool do and who's going in there to modify it after their tool has run to get rid of the really nasty looking ones and five is you can refer to the handout for that. So another reason why I certainly cannot use the output they produce as the base is that I make a great deal of use of cross-reference links. So again, even in a 10 or 20 page standard you probably say in section three, oh, C4.2 in parentheses or you have a back reference somewhere else and you can use these extensively and obviously when you've got a large document you should use them regularly so that people don't have to remember or have to manually go back and find why not let them just say, hey, click on the link and go read what you are referring to and then come back. Unfortunately, well in word when you do those things they actually are set up behind the scenes in a special manner that makes it all relative so that when you change the document and you add a new clause or you remove a clause or some clause everything all the numbering of these references is automatically readjusted as it should be and as a word processing person would expect. Unfortunately, the word produced that comes out at the end this is all stripped out and the references are hard coded. So where you previously said, I wanna go to 1.3.6 and that could or to later on be automatically changed when the spec was enlarged or contracted that's now hard coded, that's simply unacceptable and you cannot use that as a base because you reserve the right to add or remove sections and sub clauses and clauses. And over any realistic living spec, that'll happen. They removed pairs of spaces things and but they do preserve non-breaking spaces here which is very important to use as a long-time editor and publisher I'm a big fan of non-breaking spaces if you don't know what they are or you're not using them you should that's a top priority as to why you want to start using them. Okay, people will read more of a document that's pleasant to read and non-breaking spaces helps that. Okay, questions at all on that? None yet, Rex. All right, good, conformance. Right, so one, you don't need to have a clause called this although I talked about it in the previous webinar for non-trivial ones you might very well want to have it that is how is this spec to be interpreted in terms of conformance? This will spell out the rules and so it indicates the requirements, the recommendations of permission. ISO certainly has specific words you must use such as should, must, can, may and the negative version thereof and they all have to be written in lower case unlike some of the ITF aspects that are widely used out there. So again, if you're using one of those you'll have to convert them all to the ISO format and in doing so they'll no longer be uppercase which makes them harder to search for and find they'll just be regular English words. So that makes it a challenge. So we talked about normative and informative stuff by definition, notes, examples and footnotes among other things are informative and have separate rules by requirement which we'll talk about. That of course doesn't have to be spelled out because it's in the ISO style guide but again, you might have some information about this as to explain your format and layout as to how you're using these particular things. For example, the ISO format suggests that your notes and examples are stand alone. You might very well want to have them as sentences in existing paragraphs and that can cause you interesting brief because that doesn't comply with the ISO standard. It forces you to separate them rather than just having an aside comment in the middle of a paragraph which says an example or a note you have to then rearrange things. And then the whole annex needs to be identified to be the whole thing is normative or informative. And so it's interesting is that you can't have well, it doesn't appear that you can have mixed things in an annex. So as I said, it's useful to have a conformance clause and you might also have conditionally normative information. For example, I've worked in a lot of programming language and computer operating system specs and one of the ways of representing floating point arithmetic in hardware or at least in software is what's called an IEEE standard which is also has an IEC equivalent. But so if you read the specification for the C programming language, it says, well, you can support other formats, but here's an annex that is normative that says, if you choose to use this particular approach, then here is what you have to do. That is it's conditionally normative. You can comply to the standard and then you say within that whether you comply to the optional bits within that. That's not very common in standards, but certainly I've made great use of that in my code. So here's another interesting thing to consider. If you've got a large and a complex specification, it might be useful to have an informative annex that contains a summary of all of the conformance rules. So here I am, I wanna build a widget that complies to your spec and it's 100 pages. And I said, well, I can read it through and I can get a highlighter and I can say, well, okay, here's all the shalls and the shall not to whatever, but wouldn't it really be nice if you had an annex at the end that said and called those out so I can see it at glance, even by clause or some clause, all of those things and things that are related. A very useful thing to have, but to extract that, you would need some kind of a smart program tool to find the appropriate characters. And as I said, they're gonna be in regular lowercase English, they won't stand out, there will be no special hooks to find them. So you have to think about how to actually do that and maybe with special tags or some other things in there that maybe removed later on from an ISO point of view. Well, it also has a way to have hidden information, but the question there is, do their tools remove that and render it not useful? Right, so anything on conformance? All right, so now let's get into some of the nuts and bolts. So first of all, we've got some general things here but this now is clause eight and we'll see over the page, there's an eight dot one and an eight one one. And so the big issue here is there is text between eight and eight dot one. There is no text between eight one and eight one one. A careful reading of the ISO rules says you cannot have hanging paragraphs. That is, you cannot have text between two different levels of headings. That is not that, other than if it is in part of its own header. So this turns out to be a very common thing that people do but it forces you to start to create a new sub clause right from the very beginning of each clause which is artificial for many people, including myself. But nonetheless, that's called a hanging paragraph and that is not permitted. They tool almost certainly will flag that. If you then have to go back to fix it and you introduce a new heading in front of this which will be eight dot one, obviously that changes all the numbers and that point on but hopefully that's all automated and so nothing breaks at that point if you do it properly. And so beware of hanging paragraphs. Now the rationale for that is that if you have a reference somewhere in your document that points to eight, is that pointing to eight as a whole clause or is that pointing to the preamble at the beginning of eight before eight dot one? It's obviously ambiguous and that is a rationale. And I don't have a problem with that. It's just I very rarely have references to that worry about that kind of level of detail. So that's hanging paragraphs, not permitted. So clause number format, nothing big deal there. You can read about it in the handout. Now, an important one for me at least in my history is that I have not found this in the directives or in the style guideline but I've been repeatedly told over the years and is a requirement. So the lesson there is there are rules that are not written down or made publicly available and you might find out about them for the first time when you get your spec back from proofing or in the early stages. The one that I learned about is that clause of some clauses at all levels must use sentence case. That is only the leading letter or letters in proper nouns and names can be uppercase. So for example, I've got a spec that has a section that I would like to call mapping zip item names to logical item names. I must instead change that with the uppercase M. I keep the casing of the zip since that's the spelling of that particular tool but I must remove the leading upcase and item names, logical item names there. And so when I was told to do that, the editors clearly are thinking in terms of a 50 page ISO standard, not a multi-thousand page spec where this is a non-trivial effort and it's subjective because it's not a matter of writing a program to convert it automatically because it has to recognize exceptions to those particular rules. But even so for a non-trivial spec that can be a significant amount of busy work that absolutely does not improve the technical value of the spec. And so that's one of the things where I fault ISO in their complete lack of flexibility to allow styles widely used in US and British Commonwealth style English writing and publishing. And so again, can lead to frustration. So know these things in advance. Now, if you are doing anything that has computer programming, it might have XML fragments, there might be configuration files or configuring tools, any kind of a text that you sort of create an edit that is used to drive or configure or do something, a profile, all kinds of things, then you can send it in any font you like as long as it's Korean noon. And I say that tongue in cheek of course, a lot of people out there love Korean noon. A lot of people hate Korean noon, but you have no choice. That's what you have to deal with. It's certainly not what I use. I use Calibri, but they apparently is a Microsoft font and ISO one except proprietary fonts. So now let's look at some text that doesn't involve a block. So let's say in IT specs, you very often want to grab linguistic terms and display them as such using the constant width font. And so here we have an example. And you could also use that in non-IT standards as well where you wanna call out certain kinds of keywords or important kinds of terms. And so that's what it's gonna look like in using the Korea font. Now, and not Calibri console. So ordinarily, this author uses Consolus in his work. However, characters in new are wider than those in Consolus. So when I at the last minute change to Korea to get ready to submission to ISO, it turned out that certain blocks of code, in fact, were too wide. They were very long, but they became too wide because the extra width of that font. And therefore I had to go through and have a look at all of the examples and manually break them up across multiple lines as necessary to make that actually fit. So again, as I said, you don't get to choose the fonts. They choose the font for the normal irregular text and the font for the fixed width is Korea New. And you are extremely limited. I mean, that's your fonts, right? So all right, questions then about things to that point? Nothing yet. So actually, Rex, let me then ask you, would you have some recommendation for the participants to go ahead and make sure that their documents are already set with the appropriate fonts and sizes? Yes, absolutely. As soon as you learn about a requirement, you should incorporate that into your draft and be living with it. So you as the editor get the maximum exposure as do the reviewers, despite the fact they may grumble. It's like, no, that's not a negotiable issue. We have to do this. So if you're developing outside, then obviously that's not something to be considered there. Only during the transposition phase that you have to come back and deal with these things. But even then, say you're in Markdown, you could go in and say, well, we're really limited to 75 characters here in constant width font. So let's do that. And using Markdown, Lint and some of the other tools, you could enforce some of that as well. But definitely, there's the concept of dog fooding that you basically are forced to work with the limitations as soon as possible. Right, so they actually use Cambria, as I said, and those are the fonts, all right? And so their tool will normalize everything else to those. If you've got any other font used, it will quietly be converted to one of those two, and you won't be able to mechanically be able to search for it to see. You'll have to do the diffs, as I mentioned, to see if you inadvertently had others. And so for example, down here, I find it useful to be able to use italics versus slanted, but those are not supported. You have slanted, but you don't have the serif part of the Cambria typeface. They really suggest you limit your use of underlying bold and italics. I find those to be very useful at various cases. You have no shading or color or borders are allowed, very major things to highlight various kinds of examples and things. Of course, one of my specs involve very much color. And so clearly we had to allow color there and also involve shading in examples and figures and things. But again, I don't know what their tool is going to do with that since I didn't stick around long enough when the tool will start to be required. So giving emphasis, again, they have strict suggestions about not using that kind of approach, again, which I believe goes against the grain of standard English editing and publishing in the UK and the US. Right. OK, so now sometimes you want to provide links to things that are external only. There could be other resources that are normative that are required. You might have 100 page configuration files for various kinds of options and all kinds of things. And so ultimately, those need to be given to ISO, which will post on its own website, not on anybody else's. So therefore, any links in your document that reach them have to have the ISO generated link, not yours. So that's another touch up at the very end. It also means that you can update your own private copies over time as a consortium developing new versions, but that will never be reflected. And that's by design. ISO doesn't want anything to change out there, right? The standard points to a frozen set of things. Now, you should also ask them, are we required to also have a printed version of that text in respect? If you are, and I've had it both ways, I had, in fact, 600 pages of this, which was required that he pulled into the spec. So two things come out of it. Can you make links into that space from your main document? And if so, how? And how to get those preserved as links that people can randomly jump to. So you might have a schema as an attachment for an XML standard related spec and that that. Secondly, now you've got a version, inside the spec and you've got an electronic version. One of the two are not in sync, which wins which one is normative. And I've been there, done that, had to deal with it. So better to only have one source of truth. But if it's electronic only, not part of the spec, you can't typically have links into it because there we no support from that from a PDF, necessarily. So difficulties there versus having a web-based publication versus a paginated one. Right, so justification of text we talked about. Soft returns, we talked about, here's the example. So the challenge in the table in the terms and definitions is to get a good page break, you want these three things on the same page, but if they remove the soft returns, then there's no guarantee. So you go to all the trouble and then it's removed at the end anyway before publication. But the interesting challenge here, and I show you how to do this in there, but is that you have to number them in a special way, but these numbers, while they look like sub clause headings, are not allowed to appear in the table of contents.  And so that is a challenge off to it on its own. And again, if you've only got 10 entries, sure, these can be hard coded because when you add an 11th or you remove one or rearrange them, you're in half an hour's work, you can do that. But when this runs for pages and there's some complexity, you sure as heck don't wanna waste time going and manually doing anything. Also, what is not shown here is that if a term and definition refers to other terms and definitions, you're required to put a link in there or at least to state that. And I am not aware of an easy way to do that at all inside of word. And the fact that they don't produce non-trivial specs themselves, their tools and guidelines don't tell you how to because they've not figured out the how themselves as best as I can understand. So a set couple of fairly interesting issues here right up front with the terms and definitions. Okay, we're at the 10 minute mark. Let's leave time for questions and I'm happy to run long. Cross references, it doesn't say explicitly but it contains the following examples of how you do it. The most important thing when you refer to a top level clause, you have to say clause that.  Likewise with an annex. However, when you come to some clauses, you do not say that you say 10.4, 10.5 or 8.1, blah, blah, blah, see whatever. The most important thing is, is that a very widespread practice in the UK and American English is to use the section prefix here. That is used to be that's a chapter of clause or a sub clause that is not permitted. I had to go out and remove every one of those which of course can be done automatically but it was again annoying because this is a worldwide acceptable for English publication of all kinds of things. So again, there's no reason for that. It's just that Geneva says so and you can't go past going without that. So then, okay. And entries in the bibliography have to have some number and then you can set up some reference to that. Again, I've ever only ever had very short bibliographies and mine have been hard coded with numbers but I think it would challenge you if you have a lot of these to set up some automated numbering systems for that to work. Again, they don't have this in their sample templates any support for that. Okay, we'll skip this one here. And then, all right. Now again, talking about non-English approaches when you write numbers in text and again, I haven't tested this of late through their tool but I can imagine you'll have tables full of numbers that involve a thousand separators that you are not permitted to use a comma, heaven forbid, as a thousand separator. And so I was totally stunned when I learned that. Now remember, ISOs in Switzerland and Swiss French does not use commas. Indeed, Europe doesn't use commas. The non-English speaking, they use periods but so that to me was I was totally stunned and I cannot find any reason for that. And for me, the complication was I had programming examples and the source code and fragments contained commas all over the place in numbers but also in the output produced, which has to be retained because that's precisely what the tool actually does if it's compliant, but then in the narrative you're not allowed to use the same format which is the contradiction. And I've raised this over the years with ISO editors but again, until they are forced to actually edit non-trivial specs themselves they will never appreciate these kinds of subtle requirements that they put on us. So all right, the front matter. Now, I will skip over that as well. You can read more about it. The table of contents we've talked about. You know what level they're tooling will allow and if you have more levels than how do you deal with that because they probably don't allow nested or having sub table of content scattered throughout the document. In fact, 99% of word users are probably not aware that's even possible. And they have some predefined styles, a word does but again, ISO, they publish no information about the style that they finally choose for that and which is allowed or disallowed. Their tool is gonna normalize stuff. Now, finally, if you have normative references to external dependencies that are not published as recognized standards and the most popular one I deal with is the zip file format you are required to actually get permission from the owner of that external thing through a thing and ISO mechanism called a referencing explanatory report. That is they have to be made aware that a standard out there and ISO standard is gonna be published that is pointing to them and then they give permission for that and then of course, you have to suggest well, could you please make it publicly available so it could be reachable for my users and could you also freeze it so that when our standard points to your 2021 version it's gonna be there forever. And so that's a whole new ball game of having to deal with some of the people writing specs that are de facto standards out there and it requires some maintenance because over time people forget about it and they stop supporting or publicly making available various old versions yet ISO specs are still pointing to them. All right. Right, so now all I wanna say about notes and examples there's plenty of things you can read about the bottom line is, is they are set in a smaller point size. So again, depending on how you're dealing do you have a style to do that? If that style is adopted, what is ISO gonna do with that?  What if you've got code examples inside of that? Will they also be at the same size? Yes, the Korean new and then if you're coming from GitHub or something else which has no concept of typefaces and styles then how do you deal with that? How do you market and get and recognize this as an example or a note and to deal with it? And so that again, you have to think long and hard about it because any standard worth of salt will have notes and examples to further explain what it is they're trying to convey. Lists again, there are some rules and restrictions there. Tables, we've talked a little bit about. The thing about tables and figures is they all have to be numbered. Everyone has to be numbered and of course, again, if it's hard coded that's a big job if you add and remove them and the rationale is that's so that anybody completely outside of your organization wants to refer to your standard and there's a table, they can refer to it by clause and sub clause and table number and a table must also have a caption and designation and not only that but you have to refer to it at least once in your own document. You can say the following table numbered A.3.4 with this is used. It's redundant that you have to say it because everything has to be referenced internally. So there's a lot of busy work here for the sake of a people out there who might actually use it whereas your audience might never use it directly. And so there's a summary of some things that they remove or don't handle well and we've talked about those as we went along. So all right, we're right up to the wire but I'm happy to have question time run long if there are questions to deal with. We haven't had many in the chat. So we'll just take a minute and see if anybody wants to utilize that Q&A tool or the chat to host and panelists to answer my basket question. Then just if you didn't attend the first webinar or haven't downloaded it, certainly do that. And I think you can easily maybe in the chat room point to where those are because a lot of the topics we covered today are covered in a general way and there's guidelines and for decision-making about which way to go and how to do various kinds of things. So if you're going to go the route of this webinar subject matter certainly make sure you have read and understood the first one as well since that will have a bunch of different questions having different purposes but feeding into this process. And Candice beat me to it with the link to the previous webinar that Rex did. I also wanna point out we've done a couple of different webinars that may be relevant to this audience. On Tuesday we had one on the publicly available specification process. We've had a webinar on antitrust and other concerns and we hope you'll stay tuned to the JDF project series because we'll be dropping a number of other hopefully very helpful trainings from folks like Rex in the future. Okay, is there something in the Q&A? Maybe not, maybe just, okay. That says about the expert, did you see that? Yep, what percent of ISO standards are written by an expert? Well, okay. Well, I have been the editor on specs where I am not a subject matter in it but that was essentially because they were so large and complex that you couldn't get your hands around the whole thing and still have a life. So I also work on projects for Linux Foundation for specs that I'm not a subject matter expert. I'm not writing the text but I'm editing it and I'm working on the structure and organization. And so most projects I expect there's a single editor and maybe they're not even doing collaborative work. And so it falls to one person who very likely is first and foremost a subject matter expert but not an editor or I'm certainly new to the formatting requirements of ISO. So I think you would have to have quite some experience under your belt of being in that role before you could claim to understand both of them in a reasonable fashion to try to notice when things happen. So when I'm editing a collaborative document and the committee adopts five pages of new text, I have to read it to make sure that it complies with the musts and the shells and various things. And in the case of notes and examples would have to deal with the point size being reduced. So the average participant on a standards committee isn't interested in all of those details. They're there as subject matter experts. And so the editor has an interesting job there of trying to deal and to detect all of those issues often after the fact that they've been in the spec. So they might have even been in there in the previous edition and have only just been discovered in a large and complex spec. So not an easy question to answer but because the word professional sort of has connotation to it. What does that mean? Here's another one. Another one, if the standard is complex how does ISO deal with the tech evaluations? Well, in my experience, as I said today you don't know until you've actually submitted it which is nearly the end of your process as to what they're tooling or even their editors. So you can't contact an ISO editor on day one of your project and ask for help because they don't wanna hear from you and they can't afford to hear from you until the very last stage because that busy processing things that are in the pipeline getting ready for publication. So you really don't have access to them or their tools until the very end of the process which is precisely the wrong time to learn these things when you've gone down the wrong path. And so that's why it would be very useful to have some sort of a public forum. Years ago, I tried to create an email exchange forum and that was squashed immediately by the powers that be in JTC One with some cooperation from ISO. Like how did those editors collaborate to find our back and start to solve things on their own? It was a very silly situation and I've not seen anything better than that. Okay, IEEE is an international consortium like OASIS and Ekron and National and others and it's a standard development organization that publishes its own standards. Sometimes standards are co-published by others. So for example, the floating point hardware forum that I talked about earlier for IEEE was then submitted by IEEE to ISO where it's also, it's to IEC where it's adopted as an IEC standard. Other groups publish things that become ISO standards but when they co-publish them then they have numbers in both realms that are freely available from the original submitter like IEEE yet ISO will charge for them if you go to the ISO website for those documents. And then maintenance is the term, where is maintenance? Is it gonna be done under ISO or IEEE? In almost all cases, it's done by the submitting organization. And so you have the concept of co-publications and while the world still talks about IEEE floating point, the formal specification is an IEC 559 yet and we have to use that in standards bibliographies and normative references yet most of the world doesn't know what that is. So ECMA International is another SDO that does its own thing and publishes and ECMA and IEEE are both category A liaisons to JTC1 which means that they can submit their standards as though they were a country member, a national body member of JTC1 and they come in at the top level of submission and that is they do not develop the specs within the ISO realm that develop outside in these consortia and through their own rules and they've brought in the very last minute and then they get processed but they still ultimately have to comply with the ISO formatting guidelines. I suspect the complicated relationships between all of these SDOs and how ISO actually works for my governance and decision-making standpoint is the topic of another very long webinar but we did just get a thanks. Thanks, Alfred, for the great questions actually. Let me see if there's any other questions from the group. Nope, got nothing. So I think we're wrapped up for today. All right, well thank you all for your attention and do read my email address is at the top of the hand out there should you have any constructive criticism or questions to ping me there. Thank you so much Rex and Jory for your time today and thank you everyone for joining us. Just a quick reminder, this recording will be up on the Linux Foundation's YouTube page later today. We hope you join us for future webinars. Have a wonderful day. Thanks all.


Hello hello hello I'm Philip Magnus and today I'm going to play Mass Effect 3 which came out in 2012. Why am I playing a 4 year… no… 5 year old game for the simple reason that Mass Effect Andromeda is coming out soon. And honestly I've wanted to get back into Mass Effect 3 for a while now. I haven't played any of the DLCs so I'm going to change that now and I'm just excited to actually play with Shepard… a male female? I'm gonna go with uh huh huh huh huh huh, that's confusing, yeah let's go with female. I thought I played the last game as a female Shepard so you know what I'm going to go with. Ok, I'm obviously going to go with roleplaying, Jade Shepard, what do I care, um Chargill default? Yeah, I'm going to go with… nah, so confusing, let's see, no, let's go with the default appearance because I will make a horrible Shepard, oh it's been so long since I have played Mass Effect, I remember nothing, nothing at all. I think I'm going to go with Infiltrator, they can combat specialists with the unique ability to clothe themselves from visual and technological detection, fun, their inventory is stacked with a wide variety of weapons, equipment and powers, ooo cool, very cool. Am I going to go with Infiltrator or with an adept? I haven't played with an adept of any, oh I must go with Sentinel I'm afraid, yeah I'm going to go with Sentinel, haha, yeah um so let's just stop for a second and let me explain what Mass Effect is all about if you've never seen it and if you're my girlfriend watching this, in Mass Effect, you're inverting this gigantic AI creature's space civilization, very old, very ancient, destroys basically everything in a long cycle of I think 50,000 years, the AI creatures are called reapers and they are unpleasant, this is the third game of the series and it is good, it had a lot of problems, a lot of drama unfolding around it because of the business model EA went with and a very very bad ending of the game but hey it happens, it happens all the time, what can you do? So I'm gonna go with, hmm, Erdborn, Colonist or Spacer, you know I think I'm gonna go with Spacer, no I've probably went with Spacer before, I'm gonna go with Erdborn, I want to do things differently, soul survivor, war hero, Brutless, throughout your military career you held fast one basic rule, get the job done, called calculating in brutal, hmm, you know I'm gonna go with Brutless because that's something I don't think I've gone with, whoa, psychological profile, the deaths of numerous squadmates, basically throughout the first and the second games you can do all kinds of, you can take all kinds of different choices and depending on what you do you get many different outcomes this is the beauty of mass effect, it's greatest strength, no I have never played with a dead Ashley Williams so I'm going to go with Ashley Williams having been killed, why for no reason other than to see who the hell Kaiden Alenko is, yeah, alright, I'm so excited, so very very very excited, let us see, about my production the people who are after your money with an incredible amount of deal sees not all of which are worth it, how bad is it, we just lost contact with two of our deep space outposts, there's something massive on long range scanners, is this what Shepard warned us about, 30 FPS videos, how long do we have cinematics, lovely lovely lovely, and I'm being sarcastic right now, this is us, bad things are going to happen to us, in 2157 humanity discovered it was not alone in the universe, 30 years later they found a peaceful place among dozens of galactic species but this idyllic future is overshadowed by a dark past, reapers, sentient rays of machines responsible for cleansing the galaxy of all organic life every 50,000 years are about to return, holy shit, it's a little child thing, I hate the child things, they have always scared the bejesus out of me, guys or other gal, I honestly remember a single bloody thing about this game and that's the beginning, I don't even remember the ending, commander, you're not supposed to call me that anymore James, not supposed to salute you either, we gotta go, the defense committee wants to see oh I bet it does reapers coming in the house, oh no that's my ex-captain I need to up my tracks I need to up my tracks I'm certain, I am I don't remember the game looking so much better they're just scared, none of them have seen what you've seen we've all reviewed your report, seen the data you've collected but it's all just theory to us, you've been there in the trenches fighting them you know what they came up with that way they grounded me, took away my ship you know that's not true, the shit you've done any other soldier would have been tried, court martial and discharged no no it's your knowledge of the reapers that kept that from happening it keeps saving them and they are not thankful one of the biggest problems of this game was that basically a lot of the freedom you had in making choices in Mastract 1 and 2 was taken away by blunt secondary character Caden, I think, yep oh he's a major now fancy that was hurtful because I honestly don't know you at all we've lost contact with everything beyond the soul relay whatever this is, it's incomprehensibly powerful you brought me here to confirm what you already know the reapers are here oh no how unexpected how do we stop them we don't stop them this isn't about strategy or tactics this is about survival the reapers are more advanced than we are more powerful more intelligent they don't fear us and they'll never there must be some way we stand together if we're gonna have any chance at surviving this hmm we have to stand to get this that's our plan Admiral, we've lost contact with Lunabase the moon? it couldn't be that close already I think yes, of course it could easily? it's literally like slicing butter with a hot knife it's about to happen very very bad things good question, I guess we will take the ring to Mordor yeah, what she said I mean, I said what a dramatic experience however will I survive this? aye, the main character it's not like I've blot armour or anything yay, a tiny gun for a very big machine such unpleasantness okay, can I play now? just a quick little thing graphics of course seriously? that's all the graphics options well that's stressful yep moving moving moving let's run away okay I'm sure this will not be hard as I have died all many times before here is something to shoot at come boys jeez, I have forgotten more than yeah, of course I mean, why would I not take out the husks unless, you know God, I have forgotten how to shoot I have forgotten how to shoot a gun in one of these virtual video games alright okay not all that hard not laser again it is very annoying isn't it? alright let's find a way out an enamel pack that medkit alright jeez, I have seriously forgotten how to play I don't suppose I could you know okay watch it oh yeah, right you could do that flex those muscles shepard hello child with little starship version toy version of the Normandy that's the one and so will you get out of there nope no one can shepard in here you're a pre-written seriously Anderson I literally held the door open for you do you think I do not know where to go you'd think there's an admiral would get that I'm trying to help someone child debt one sure way to make people care if you don't annoy them enough with whoa that look in her eyes that's total crazy right there that's what they do we need to go to the citadel talk to the council the fight's here it'll be everywhere soon enough you said it yourself the Reapers will destroy everything we don't stop them kind of weird that they start with us right yeah I don't think so that has to come for something really really something quite little I was just about to say that guess I remember something after all alright read explosions at least take one of them out that's some nasty exploding our ships are doing some very nasty stuff oh I remember those guys yep it doesn't work alright hold on show yourself that's better that's annoying that's just annoying let me how about I just go there and what are you alright I am over here do you want a better nut let's get to that gunship let's run towards it in an apparent lack of delusional bravery alright it works well enough hey fellas die please thank you you how about you we don't want them to get nice going Admiral hey we found what we had to good excellent I think the controls are doing the best Inquisition had such great controls uh oh plenty of those freaks around let's reload and get all over it good good good very good let's finish him off oi leave the shields alone mate gotta get my shields recharged recharged I mean glorious combat alright how about you mate need a bit of help dying I'm really low on I was just about to die in a foolish skirmish a darling ship of mine how I have missed you I wonder if I can kill Caden off it'll be very nice of course you know you're making my points mate democracy sometimes sure will in 60 hours time in game time no certainly not in game I wish here it comes little child dead and he's not shooting at us hard to believe why are we even staying in the same place ah Bioware you will never stop trying to manipulate our feelings in such blatant obvious ways that's why we love him and hate you mostly hate him ah yes Shepard is Jesus that's all you need now tantant and raw credits and that was the game folks where's Anderson where are we going see that's why no one likes you you ask way too many obvious questions leaving yeah we are Anderson wants us to go to the citadel get help for the fight you wouldn't order us to leave he just did soldier without help this war is already over then you can drop me off at the nearest depot cause I'm not you don't want to go we get it yeah but this isn't a democracy we're going to the citadel you want out you can catch a ride back from there huh, one moment so we will defeat them unconventionally no, boggy technology not even 150 years in the future does it get any better first up, Mars the joy of shooting at Martians I don't know yet but if it helps us win this war grab your gear yay there will be gear grabbing


This video is sponsored by BetterHelp. A couple months ago we faced a major setback when a fire tragically broke out during the night at our workshop, eventually engulfing everything by the morning. Since then it's been a gigantic pain dealing with insurance, with some of our coverage being rejected, and now being forced to challenge it legally in what is likely going to be a slow and drawn out process. So after much delay, finally needed to move on and clear out the garage and see what actually survived and what might be recoverable. It's been two months, about time to finally clean this up, got the dumpster here, and have a very depressing ribbon cutting ceremony. But first, if you ever find yourself in let's say a hypothetical situation where a large part of your personal property, your car, and your business were destroyed, maybe it could help to have someone to talk to like today's sponsor. This past year has been difficult for everyone. I know I felt it with the extra isolation, the financial challenges, and just a whole lot of extra chaos in the world. Sometimes it just feels really overwhelming and you just need someone you can talk to. But there are options out there to help and get you assistance and as little as 48 hours. Better help will assess your needs and match you with your own licensed professional therapist. There is a broad range of expertise available, which may not always be present locally in many areas, and the service is accessible worldwide. You can log in to your account any time and send a message to your counselor. You'll get timely and thoughtful responses, plus you can schedule weekly videos or phone sessions so you won't ever have to sit in an uncomfortable waiting room. It's a very affordable option compared to traditional counseling and financial aid is available. Better help wants you to start living a happier life today. Visit betterhelp.com slash htme, that's better h-e-l-p. Enjoying over 1 million people who have taken charge of their mental health with the help of an experienced professional.  Don't hit that. Oh, acid. The first casualty you find is my bike. My bike was hanging right in front of the door, so it got most of the blast. Got one pedal brake lines. I don't know what that was. Here's the front of it. A little melted aluminum. Handleboard. It's got some fiberglass. Here's a changer. Some of the spokes. Here's the lock. Maybe usable. That's part of the tire. That must have been aluminum. But the aluminum, it didn't stand much of a chance. Where are they all survived? Definitely seen some better days. Solvable? Totally. Fire extinguisher. My attempts to fight the fire did not work out so well. Maybe we can salvage this, at least make a metal crucible or something out of it. What is this? Oh, this is my paddle board. Sad. Don't think that'll float anymore. Yeah, what's left of our oxy-settling welder? I doubt they're salvageable. Maybe we can repurpose them for something, but I wouldn't put flammable gas in them. Torch. Almost seems salvageable. I don't know. Some ingot molds that survived. Pretty much fully intact. They did not form any ingots. Apple box isn't looking too good. One side's good though. Good as new. All right, I got a wood planer here. Electric one. Not looking too good. Kind of got a little smushed and stuff fell on it. All right, so this shelf is pretty much completely gone. Everything fell. I have to dig through that. But these shelves are for the most part intact. This is the compass. Body made out of bronze. Lasted all right. Face on it has completely melted, but rest of it's pretty good. Very hefty piece. Should be able to salvage that. Gas mask tube. Bamboo itself has survived. Mostly. I'm surprised a string is still here. That's interesting. Just disintegrates. So I guess it's not really there. Just the charred remain of it. I don't think that's usable. I don't even know where the actual mask for it went. Looks like it's just gone. That was, I don't know what this was, but it's gone now. A variety of pottery that's actually pretty, pretty much untouched. These are the only first bottles we fired. Wood fired. That might be why it survived.  I'm glad that survived. Oster jig has crocked and shattered. So I don't think it's going to be too good. Smells gross. Had a rock of obsidian. It's like it's shattered. Probably salvage the obsidian itself for future use. Survived pretty good. This was from Dax I think. It held up. Fireproof obsidian in there. What an idea that was. Start the pottery here. It might have cracked the bottom one. That also might have already been there. These all seem to be intact. Looks good. We got a bell still. Don't forget to like and subscribe and hit that subscription notification. If you have a kiss, have seen some better days. Actual pieces seem okay though. Maybe salvage that someday. Oil bottles. And at least made back of the day. They seem to all be intact. Still has liquid in it. Don't know what that is. That's probably oil. I think that's olive oil. Survived. Interesting. Another remains of a tablet. A little bit of writing here. A few letters from our language. Just barely make out. Interesting artifact. We'll see a couple of bigger pieces. Some sort of rock. Seems like glass. It's either obsidian or some of our glass attempts. Everything's black now so it's hard to judge. Funnel. Still good. I cracked this pottery. Also good. There's one way to clean them out. This one might have some cracks in it. But I think that's intact. This is from DAX. We haven't even had a chance to use it yet. Glad that survived. Here's a fermenting vat. This is already broken. He actually sent me a new one. I drugged my feet actually picking it up from the post office. So it wasn't in here. So that's good news. Not too salvageable. Add it to a future grog pile I guess. And four is heavy. That's pretty good. You'll see the inscription on it. I don't know if that'll come off. It might be glazed on there actually. But we'll see if we can clean that up. See if we can get back the design. We have a big pot here that did not make it. We have the bottle from the soda episode. How much did that pretty go? And we got a stack of plates. I think most of these are busted to begin with. That crack was already there. Those are pretty nice bowls. I'm glad it survived. These ones are both intact. A lot of the pottery made it. $0.6. I never really got that hot. What's that for? I don't know. A snail did it. A big rock. A fool's gold we got in Utah. As far as it didn't break up. The pirate's pretty brittle to get it up. It usually just kind of explodes. See if we can clean that up or something. The ceiling. Here's a meridium. That survived. I think it's charcoal already. Head in there. Completely salvaged. That's nice. Pieces of ceiling. This is something. I think this is a bottle gourd. Flammable. The other fermenting vats. Some of the wax was melted and came later at the bottom. But it's still good. A room here. Alright so here we have the wall of tools. You can see what a few things are still on there. You can tell what was there. It's kind of interesting. A dry knife Adrian made us. Caps on them. Handles seem to be a bit busted. Very rusted. But I think we'll get that back to pretty much good as new. So we have the axe head. Pretty much intact it looks. It should definitely be salvageable. I don't think that's worth keeping. And then we have the saw. Still hanging up. Very rusty. But should be able to clean that up. Be good as new. The file survived. All reusable. That'll be rusted. All the file parts. Let's see what's fell down. Looks like the plum bob. That did not survive. That's disappointing. Let's see what we can find Bob.  Should have survived. We'll also go find it in all this mess. Centipedes. The bugs have moved in. There's the pole saw. Definitely rusted up. Should be salvageable. Handles even. Probably salvageable too. Here's the bronze axe. Whoops. Toast. But still shiny parts. Ditch the handle. Plastic. Plastic. It's like glass. Oh that's from the hourglass I think. There's a base of it. Not too much left of that guy. Oh this is actual sand. Here's the top of it I think. Yeah. Looks too bad. I like that thing. It's like metal. No that's plastic. Hard-booted plastic. Rock. I don't think that has any significance. That's just part of the wall. Here's the bronze draw knife. Handles are completely gone. But bronze arrived. There's a key pitch. That's probably something. That good trash can. Cups. He survived mostly actually. Right here. That's a nice one to keep. Archaeological digger. The pelts die backs. I might be a hammer. I think these are both hafted. Here's the tip of that one knife. Found a little mouse. Dobby has not been doing her job. He's pissed. Yeah. He saved her life. Another one. Here he goes. Where are you going to let him go? I'm outside here. Yeah, so I'm going. Hydraulic press stand. Might still be salvageable. Springs don't look too good. Entertainment stand. Hold the monitor when I'm filming. I don't know where the TV went. I think this is it. Not a very good TV. Here we have over here. Pottery stick or something. That's in a little porn. From the bow. Looks like it's pretty much toast. This is a spear. We're going to find this spearhead somewhere. Here's a compound bow. I don't think that's surviving. And the bones are all burnt up. That's a total loss I think. Should be one more bow. How is the self bow? It might be entirely burned up. Some pottery here is waiting to be fired. Looks like I made it. And here's the 80-bitty hammer. And there's the awl. A spoon. I wonder what that was. I think they're good. I have the test square of the line of thorax. Put it through the ultimate test, I guess. Still standing. Cat tail. Baskets. This is some of the tubing from the mask. Hard and brittle now. Stick. Some hollow. It's like a twine survived. Some of it at least. Camera battery. I don't think that's good anymore. A basket of some ploys here. That was a charcoal. That's still charcoal. Still usable I guess. These wax I think. No resin. Melted into one big block. Beaker looks like it's still good. These wax. It's also melted into a big block. Here's the expensive stuff. Camry equipment. They got shoved over here. Lens wipes. Those are good. Diffusion cloth. I don't think that's usable. I guess some actual camera lenses. Might actually be usable. It's probably full of ash though. That doesn't look too good. Probably not. Little tripod. This actually looks usable. Yeah. That might be salvage roll. Other mount. Looks pretty good too. Zoom lens. Maybe. Probably a pretty long shot. Those are good. Battery. It works. You just need to charge it. Maybe good. Looks pretty good. Lens cap. Doesn't look too bad. USB cord. Little rusty. Probably not usable. I think these batteries are good. I think I want to risk it. I don't want the camera to explode. It's usable still. These are all good. Battery pack. Looks a little scorched. That's probably bad. Light. Looks pretty warped. There's that missing task cam. Might all be good. Let's see what's filled behind. I'm going to find that spearhead at least. Found it. Right here. Wedge against the wall. Spearhead. No sign of the bow. I'm pretty sure that was on the wall. So I think it might be completely gone. At least we have the arrowhead. Here's the spearhead here. So it looks like the stone wheel. Still intact. A little shard, but still one piece. Weird banding on the back. Just from the wood it was against. Propane forage is looking a little rough, but it might be salvageable. I mean, it's designed to be fireproof. Propane tank's probably dead. The whining's still halfway decent. I think this was a wood chipper. The box bellows don't look too good. Seen better days. The anvils. They're still solid, but probably lost their heat treats. I might have to try and heat them and salvage them possibly. That one's probably lost its heat treatment too. So maybe it can be reheated. I don't know. Just bought that. Barely used it. So the toms and stuff have survived. All rusted up. At least one of the hammers. Oh, here's my hammer. So that survived. The board itself is all here. I don't know how we'll be able to salvage it if we have to rebuild. We have to disassemble the entire thing and rebuild it or something. Then over here is where we have our more modern tools when we need them. Two different miter saws, a drill press, sander, bench grinder, whole pegboard, those full of tools that has now fallen down.  These are herb shopping axes I was going to give away to patrons and keep not having time to actually do it. I guess it's more rustic. They are still here, so those are still coming, I guess. Here are all the handles for them. These burn just enough to be not really usable. That's the stuff. Expensive camera tripod. All the components are melted. I think the legs are still good. I don't know if there's anything worth salvaging, but it's expensive tripod. Pottery kiln, a little rough, but it's designed to withstand temperatures, at least on the inside. The elements are intact, at least. The cords toast. I don't think the controls are going to work. That's the internals I've tried, but I'm essentially going to place that and salvage it. There's a metal melt furnace. I just bought this. The controls are melted out. There's still a bit at least. Possibly can salvage something, but no much. I'm cleaning out the floor. I have a fridge. I just stocked it. I hope I have any beverages left. Here we go. What is this? Dr. Pepper. Still fresh. If you clean up the lid, they probably are still good. They're still pressurizing. Yeah. Pretty much cleared up the garage now and gotten what we can salvage and what is pretty much just a loss. A fair amount of things have survived. Pretty much anything that's metal. The bronze, pretty much untouched. Just a little bit of some petite on the outside. Anything iron is very rusted now. Kind of burned off the protective coat. So I have to do a lot of rust removal. Probably redo all the wood handles. Most of them are pretty much toast. About 50% of the ceramics ended up surviving, which is pretty good, I think. Anything made out of wood like the Abacus is mostly toast. So should be able to start the long process of cleaning things up and rebuilding them. Got a collection of our store-bought modern tools that potentially can be salvaged. Very rusty. Can't even open it. Got like a whole bin of files. Probably not too usable now, but these will make a good starting stock for future knives and such. And just got giant melted plastic bins that I got to pry apart and figure out what's inside. Lots of fun. Here's our basically pile of our tools that probably not much can be done with. So let's just keep that for insurance to reference what we lost. So now it's just a matter of figuring out what we're exactly going to do next. Kind of a little split on if we try and salvage the foundation and maybe some of the walls. Or if we just start completely from scratch and redo the foundation. Pros and cons to both. Lots of options. And fortunately, thanks to everybody's donations, we can actually afford some of them. So we aren't forced to make do. In the process, we did find a fair amount of old projects and I think probably trying to do a second round of the auction of some of the fire-survived items and give people a chance to bid on some of those. So this is where things are at. Things are cleaned up, I guess. That's a good first step. I'll do kind of regular updates as things move along. Go from here and hopefully start rebuilding. Hopefully it won't take too long to get started on that. Thanks again to everybody for your support both on the GoFundMe, Patreon and anything we do in the future. Really, really helps. Psychologically is very reassuring because it's a very difficult situation to lose all of this and have to start over. But thanks again for everybody's support and thanks for watching. Thanks for watching.


This is Wet Le Mans from the arcade. I've recently got this working on main. It's taking me God knows how long But it's yours since I've played this in the arcades. This is based on the world famous Wet Le Mans race Which was actually the 54th Grand Prix of this mechanical endurance. Oh, and we're off and I just wanted to share my lap with you. I've just about to Thunder into Curved Dunlop and under the Dunlop bridge Almost losing it at that corner there at the very start of the race as well 215 mile an hour through the asses and on to Tert Rouge The actual race based on this game took place on 3 p.m. On the 1st of June, 1986 And now the infamous Mawson Strait. This is supposed to be three and a half miles long Chap called Joe Gartner died on this very stretch of road Caught by a gearbox failure. I might be wrong, but that just looked like the Mawson kink I went through On the brakes early here There were over 26 British drivers who entered these races with Derrick Bell helping to secure victory in the Rothmans Porsche This looks like the Indianapolis Benz Be really careful through here Track apparently is eight point four seven miles long, and I think it's one of the longest in the world The man's is one of those games where you just keep your foot to the floor for about 80% of the time Which is pretty much bang on with the real thing. I'm just coming out of our nice and fast approaching what I believe is Porsche curves I'm using a ps4 controller and I'm all over the place. So if anybody's got any feedback or help for me, you will appreciate it Break hard at White House Then the Ford chicane's and then onto the straight. This is a fantastic game. It looks just as good as I remember I just wish I could nail the controls Thanks for watching and please please please subscribe


What's up everybody? Jason here for jazby's case breaks calm 21 22 Canadian National Treasures basketball just sold out This is a four box case break pick a teams number six And here we go You have a little character sign that means you won that From a team pack filler. I mean, yeah, if you invested early in crypto like the Winklevoss twins did then yeah You're a billionaire and there was a lot of millionaires, but it's just too unstable right now Derek light for the Boston Celtics going to Travis and And a 101 printing plate of Elvin Hayes for the San Diego Rockets And look that up who the San Diego Rockets And a buffalo was Clippers them with San Diego Derek white tonight, and I We have James Worley Lakers that's going to Travis and Keon Johnson five out of 25 nice patches there about the answer Allen Iverson six out of 49 And that was blazers going to Carl with that patch and then sixers Going to Nick and we got an Evan Mobley 45 out of 49 nice little patch auto That is a clutch factor not a true RPA, but very nice clutch factor there that is going to the calves and Travis We have a true holiday to 99 that is Travis and And Christian would Houston going to Gretch Subonus four of ten look at that signature right there Carl and Rick Fox for the Lakers going to Travis nice break for Travis in the first box 23 out of 49 Your 90s baby Nicholas what year? I'm ready to Christmas 92 No guys. I'm gonna be 30 years old like I'm literally I feel really old already. Oh, no, I thought you said 90s baby. I was like, oh, you're 90s, baby awesome true holiday to 99 and Subonus son subonus for the Pacers carry Irving. Oh 80th gotcha. Hey, that's the year my sister was born about LeBron James for the calves that is a Travis 45 49 man, I would pull this guy eight out of ten Josh giddy Beautiful patch going to the Thunder and Shawn Matic. Oh, man That is my second giddy RPA Thunder up, baby We have Montrez Herald for the Clippers Isaiah Stewart and Jalen Brunson Usman Garuba, I've actually always wanted to ask that I mean, I don't think it's a rude question, right? Or do people take it as rude?  I Know what it is to obviously I do that a respect to but Why isn't that people don't like? Why is it that people don't like to share their age?  I guess No, it's everybody differently, you know Dennis Schroeder I guess what it is to is that we should all just stop judging each other Whether you're older or younger like oh man, I got so young what a smart guy or like man that guy's old You know, you shouldn't be doing that or you got way into this way too late, you know, I don't know I guess I'm just saying I guess people shouldn't judge Sixers one of them though Charles Barkley, but that's not the world we live in I guess Seth Curry out of 25 Brooklyn Nets that's Gretch AJ nothing but a number that's such a Age is nothing but a number baby Russell Westbrook and how's Dominique Wilkins? Atlanta going to Nick Whoa three RPAs about Chris Dwarf is 16 out of 49 Thomas Brooks with that one. What a case Nice one George McGinnis Armani Brooks to 49 that's for Houston going to Gretch We have a bow band to 99 and Joe West camp do the right thing. I know right I need to Logo man time if we hit a logo man here. I'd be so happy. I just be Say this is by the best case ever. Where's that giddy was a little man? I mean nuts All right, here we go. She goes out gender to 75 nice Evan Mobley that's for the calves and Travis a lot of Evan Mobley there bones Highland nice three-color patch right there geez 1925 that's nuggets What's helping us all the time Joe, I wish I was a teenager in the 80s.  Look that up really quick Optimus prime Prime is at a 25 or less. So if the player actually signs at a 25 It's most likely going to be at a 10 if the player signs out of 49. It's out of 25 So super prime would be one-of-one part number 20 John Morant Very nice John Morant. So John Morant actually Only signed 25 of those so that'll actually be less than 25. So maybe at a 10 Something like that because like I said some of them signed out of 49 some of them signed out of 25 So that's why it says or less So that is Memphis Grizzlies Wen Shun, there you go. Very nice Great case. I must say this. This is a very nice case Very very nice case. I know that's right, but Nicholas was telling me who did that go to? Wow, and how about another true RPA this time 11 out of 99 Zyre Williams This kid could ball too He could ball Look at that and that is again. Yeah back to back right Wen Shun We have David Robinson Wow, this was a great case. I know obviously for some people, you know, the the teams that they got didn't hit much but Overall, this is a very nice case Isaiah Thomas to 99 Also to guys I just got a text message from Nick He's saying he posted two more NT caves breaks up on the website Just know though that their national promo breaks so we can't break those Until we're at the national so it'll have the little NSCC on it So if you haven't grabbed your teams yet, you can grab them now But just remember that those cases can't break until we're at the national Number seven though that we have here can break with Joe either tomorrow or Monday So hopefully you guys definitely do that by that but the next couple can't sell or won't be able to break until we're at the national And like I said, we're gonna have a total of 75 promo breaks as you can see now Our page is very close to having at least over 15 of them now So as we get closer and closer, you're gonna see more more than pose. Whoa Lemon pepper Lou and Jamal Crawford. How about that? 22 out of 25 So we got Nick's which is Wayne and Atlanta Nick. That'll be a randomizer right here at the end And last one here is a little pony Kristoff Sportzingis Dallas Mavericks is going to Gretch and there you go guys Again, another great case. Unfortunately, I know some teams some of the bigger teams This will go hit list or didn't hit much still appreciate it though We do have one more case with Joe over this weekend Definitely can pull a big little woman there if not at the national But we got a Zyre Williams RPA to 99 RPA to 49 Chris Duarte and of course the biggest hit of them all Josh giddy eight of ten Gold RPA and again a lot of nice stuff that dual autograph. We got a job or ant redemption This was definitely a solid case. I haven't even show the Evan Mobley man. What a case Allen Iverson This was by far probably one of the better cases we've seen without having a logo man, obviously All right, I'm trying to see if I didn't miss anything Garuba Subique I mean even throwing that LeBron right there. I didn't have color in it, but it's still nice No, well, I mean they make thousands and thousands of these cases rex. So it's not too easy to pull one But when you do It's definitely worth it. All right now we're doing this randomizer here Crawford and Lou Williams we go so it'll be Nick's and Hawks here we go Nick's and Hawks Roll it There ain't no one four times. Here we go one two three four Boom four times for Nick's stay at the top Wayne congratulations Tagged that there for Wayne so fortunately Nick didn't get you that beat to get a nice Allen Iverson some other nice hits though Man, thank you. Appreciate it guys. Just be skates race calm


You two team keep it clean. What's going on? It's engraving here with another video and in this video We're here to talk about the game coming up tomorrow and the fact that the Raven only gonna have four Why receive is going into the game cuz our guy our iron man our strong man Jeremy Macklin is not expected to play and now while he He hasn't had his best. He hasn't had the best season in his first season in Baltimore But he certainly hasn't had the worst his head there has been a lot of injuries with him During games after games for games during the week, whatever but Could be worse it could be worse, but it could be better, but it could be worse. So We'll see what we can do without him a Lot of guys are gonna have to step on not a lot of guys We don't have a lot of guys left But guys are gonna have to step up Mike Wallace got to do better Chris Moore got to do better Campanero and our favorite guy for sharp cave Favorite guy for sharp pavement So it's gonna be a very interesting game I'm interested to see how they handle this how they react to this how the team does With Jeremy Macklin being absent because that is a big That's a big blow Like I said, even though he wasn't having his best season here that it's still a big blow to the team to the roster to the depth of this Ravens team Yes, it probably should be a lot a lot of running place a lot of run Coach defense ain't known for anything right now except being bad. So hopefully that continues tomorrow But we'll see man We'll see because it is any given Sunday in this case is any given Saturday So tomorrow could be the game where they run defense just steps up. Hopefully it's not I mean, hopefully Ravens can make adjustments. They can count everything that the coach do But it's gonna be a little bit harder not having there the top wide receiver In the game tomorrow that being Jeremy Macklin. So we'll see how everything plays out But either way, it's up Joe.  Yeah, like JB smooth said it's gonna be supposed to be raining tomorrow So that's gonna have an effect on the game too. So let's see everything plays out But anyway, they had to come on here let y'all know that they didn't end up bringing a Quincy up QA They didn't end up bringing him or Kenny bail up from the practice squad. What's up, Abel?  That's it. Anyway, appreciate y'all. Thank you and I'm out