[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Re: #6.8 - Errata Review - "In-passing errors"
Patrick, I was not consulting the defect report. I just happened to see, while trying to match up the lines, that there was this other line that had exactly the same problem. (I ran into that line by mistake while checking the existing errata items and it took extra effort to be sure which were the correct places to apply the existing errata.) So I am pointing out this other place in the same table. In one sense it is the same defect, and I am not so literal about scope (since as a reviewer of the errata as it is disseminated, I have no idea about that - the scope restriction is not in evidence). - Dennis PS: For me, specifications are like software even though in prose. That, together with the prospect of non-native English readers and translators for other languages, requires extra care. Handling comments and defect/incident reports (again, for me) is like dealing with bugs and usability hiccups. There is what is reported, which may be a symptom, there is the underlying defect, which needs to be figured out, and then there is finding the places where the defect is to be remedied. Asking where else the defect may be manifest is a natural question when dealing with software and specifications. That might be too complicated for a simple erratum/patch and broader remedies are deferred to a new release, but if one jumps out in your face, my tendency is to nip that one off too. Why leave it to trip people up and having to be found again later when it is in our hot little hands right now. There is also the small matter that, to outsiders, having no knowledge of and concern for "the scope," seeing an obvious defect be incompletely corrected will reflect badly on the TC and leave doubts about where else we are careless about this (from an external perspective). In this particular case, if we don't make the change now (arguing that it is in scope because it is the same defect and it will trip people up to see it overlooked), it is at least captured now and can go on a growing list of items for future errata. Unless ODF 1.0 is declared obsolete or supplanted, I suspect that another errata document is quite likely. -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00030.html Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 08:39 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [office] Re: #6.8 - Errata Review Dennis, Another question: Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00024.html <snip> > ODF 1.0 IS 26300 > Section page line page line > > > <snip> > *9.5.3* *330* *27* *334* *29* [under "T" *** missed ***, same as B and V] > When you say "missed," do you mean not in the Japanese defect report? If so, why would it appear in this errata document? (Note I am not disagreeing an error exists, but asking about the scope of this particular errata document.) Hope you are having a great day! Patrick [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]