Re: [office-comment] Fw: [members] Public Review of OpenDocument v1.0Errata - 15 day review

[Sheldon Britton <sab_orion@verizon.net>]

Hello All,

Question: In order to attract an as wide as possible audience of this 
Public Review process within the stated time-frame - to what extent were 
the /"*technical presses, publications...."*/ informed with respect to 
these activities.

Kindest regards.

Sheldon A. Britton

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 08/07/2008 
> 05:40:13 PM:
>
>   
>> I notice with mild amusement that the Errata .odt document is claimed to 
>>     
> be
>   
>> an version 1.2 document and that OO.o 2.4 invites me to download an 
>>     
> update
>   
>> to OpenOffice.  (I don't install beta versions of software that I am 
>>     
> using
>   
>> for production purposes.)
>>
>>     
>
> OASIS deliverables are provided in three formats:  editable source, PDF 
> and HTML or XHTML.  Among those three there should be something to please 
> everyone.
>
>   
>> PS: For those who want to download the documents without them opening in
>> their browser, the folder is accessible at 
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd02/
>>
>> PPS: Is there some reason the base document (Existing Standard link, 
>>     
> below)
>   
>> is v1.0-os instead of the ISO 26300 counterpart, v1.0ed2-cs1?  Does it
>> matter?
>>
>>     
>
> Approved Errata apply to OASIS Standards.  Only ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1 have 
> the status of an OASIS Standard.  ODF 1.0 (second edition) has the status 
> of Committee Specification.  If we wanted to updated ODF 1.0 (second 
> edition) we could do that as well, through a slightly different procedure, 
> yielding an updated Committee Specification.  The ISO/IEC version will 
> need to be corrected via the JTC1 process, based on the OASIS errata, once 
> it is approved.
>
> Although in theory we could propose separate errata documents for all 
> three OASIS texts, we need to ask whether that would be a worthwhile 
> effort, and balance that with the needed effort in completing ODF 1.2 
> where all of these errors, and many others are addressed.
>
> But certainly anyone who wishes to join the ODF TC with the object of 
> working on ODF 1.0 errata is more than welcome.  We could set up a 
> subcommittee for that effort if needed.  I note that such document format 
> errata committees in JTC1/SC34 seem to attract large crowds, 20-25 people, 
> larger by several times than the entire active membership of the OASIS ODF 
> TC.  But until that day comes, ODF 1.2 work will dominate the TC's agenda.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 09:58
>> To: office-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [office-comment] Fw: [members] Public Review of OpenDocument 
>>     
> v1.0
>   
>> Errata - 15 day review
>>
>> ----- Forwarded by Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM on 08/07/2008 12:55 PM 
>>     
> -----
>   
>> From:
>> "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> The specification document and related files are available here:
>>
>> Existing Standard:
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf 
>> Standalone Errata:
>> Editable Source:
>>
>>     
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd02/OpenDocument-v1.0-errata-
>
>   
>> cd-02.odt 
>> PDF:
>>
>>     
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd02/OpenDocument-v1.0-errata-
>
>   
>> cd-02.pdf 
>> HTML:
>>
>>     
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd02/OpenDocument-v1.0-errata-
>
>   
>> cd-02.html 
>>
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>     
>
>
>