Re: [office] Summary of changes from ODF v1.0 to ODF v1.0 (2nd edition)

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Robert,

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote On 05/22/06 15:38,:
> 
> I noticed some possible typographical errors in the 
> opendocument-v1.0-2nd-edition-changes.odt document.  I'm not sure if 
> these errors carried through to the edited document, but here they are:
> 
> page 2,  correction for page 113, "nNow" should be "now".  Also, missing 
> space between "section:" and "6.3.8".  (At least that's my understanding 
> of usage, that you have a single space after the colon.)  Also, in this 
> and other places, references to section titles should be in italics, 
> correct?

It seems that all errors you reported are only in the changes document. 
"nNow" appears only there, and there is a blank between the section and the 
"6.3.8" in the specification document itself. Section titles included in 
references were in italics before we used section numbers. We now have 
replaces them by a [section number]:[section title] schema, where the section 
number is the one of superordinate section. This schema actually is only used 
if a section does not have a number. In all other cases, only the number is used.
> 
> page 2, correction for page 114, not sure if this is correct.  6.3.9 
> section title is "Using Sequence Fields", not "Reference Name".  Maybe 

See above. There is a colon between the section number and the sub section

> the Reference Name section should be called 6.3.9.1?  Or perhaps we do 

That's a change we plan for OpenDocument 1.1 only.

> not even need a forward reference if we are referring to something 
> within the same section?
> 
> page 4, correction for page 393,  is "11.1" really a chapter?  I thought 
> "11" was a chapter but "11.1" was a section.

You are right. We should correct that in ODF 1.1 as well.

> 
> page 7, the reference for the ZIP format.  Is it proper to cite two 
> references for this, [JAR] and [ZIP]?  If they don't differ, then it is 
> redundant to cite both.  But if they do differ in some obscure detail, 
> then it may be ambiguous if we cite both.

Since the references are in a "for further reading see" style, I personally 
think it is oky to reference both,
> 
> -Rob

Michael
> 
> 
> Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote on 05/22/2006 07:43:31 AM:
> 
>  > Dear TC members,
>  >
>  > to simplify the public review of OpenDocument v1.0 (2nd edition), I have
>  > assembled a document from the various mails in the e-mail archive that
>  > described the changes. It is at
>  >
>  > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.
>  > php/18291/opendocument-v1.0-2nd-edition-changes.odt
>  >
>  > Best regards
>  >
>  > Michael
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>  > generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs 
> in OASIS
>  > at:
>  > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>  >

-- 
Michael Brauer                                Phone:  +49 40 23646 500
Technical Architect Software Engineering      Fax:    +49 40 23646 550
StarOffice Development
Sun Microsystems GmbH
Sachsenfeld 4
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany                e-mail: michael.brauer@sun.com