Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

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

All,

On 23.09.08 01:10, Doug Mahugh wrote:
> In general I agree with your point, Andreas, but since this was corrected to "style:wrap-dynamic-threshold" in ODF 1.1, it seems to me that reverting to the typo of version 1.0 in ODF 1.2 may be confusing to implementers.

Doug: That's a good point and something I believe we should consider.

One more remark:

The section in question reads as follows:

*****
Dynamic Wrap Threshold

The style:wrap-dynamic-threshold attribute is evaluated only if the
style:wrap attribute has a value of dynamic. It specifies the minimum
distance between the page or column border and the object for which
wrapping will be enabled.
<define name="style-graphic-properties-attlist" combine="interleave">
	<optional>
		<attribute name="style:wrap-dynamic-treshold">
			<ref name="nonNegativeLength"/>
		</attribute>
	</optional>
</define>
******

The error report in question is:

******
The first para in 15.27.22 says style:wrap-dynamic-threshold, while
the schema fragment in this subsection says style:wrap-dynamic-treshold.
("h" between "t" and "r" is missing.)
******

We have spelled the attribute name correctly one time (in the
description), and one time incorrectly (in the schema). The heading also
says "Threshold". This means that the spelling in fact is inconsistent,
and the question actually is what implementors reading the specification
would assume what the name of the attribute is. My personal opinion is
that implementors notice the inconsistency, assume that it was not our
intention to misspell the attribute, and implement it with the correct
spelling. I further would assume that they do not implement a misspelled
attribute name (if the spelling is correct in the description) without
notifying us about the issue or asking us what our intention was. I
therefore think that the correction of the misspelled word is not
substantive, even if it occurs in the schema. Please note that my
conclusion would be different if either "treshold" would be a correct
spelled word, or if we would have misspelled it in the description and
the heading, too.

Anyway that is my personal opinion, and I do understand that others come
to a different conclusion.

My suggestion for resolving this issue is that we continue to discuss
this on the mailing list until the end of this week. We may then have a
small ballot in the TC on Monday whether or not to include this
resolution in the errata before we conduct the other three votes
required to start a public review of the draft.

Best regards

Michael


> 
> FYI, we have not implemented this attribute in Word, because Word doesn't have the option to specify a minimum distance with dynamic wrapping.  So our particular implementation is not affected by the resolution, regardless of which approach is used.
> 
> Regards,
> Doug
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas J. Guelzow [mailto:aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 11:35 AM
> To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?
> 
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 12:54 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
>> The OASIS's Approved Errata process says:  "Once approved, the Approved
>> Errata shall be with the specification it corrects, in any publication of
>> that specification."
>>
>> Of course, it is possible that someone creates a new implementation based
>> on a pre-errata version of ODF 1.0 that they downloaded a year ago.
>>
>> But the intent is:
>>
>> 1) The TC's work should be thoroughly reviewed before submitting it for
>> approval at Committee Specification and above.
>> 2) That, combined with the 60-day public review at Committee Specification
>> stage, should find any critical technical flaws in the text.
>> 3) Once approved as an OASIS Standard, we can fix minor (Not Substantive)
>> errors via the Errata process
>> 4) But if some more serious technical flaw is found, especially one that
>> would require modifying existing conformant implementations,  it should be
>> fixed in a new version of the standard.
>>
>> Note that a new version does not necessarily mean ODF 1.2.  If we found a
>> set of critical technical errors in ODF 1.0, we could always make an ODF
>> 1.01 version and send that through the approval process.  I'm not
>> recommending this, but that is the route for dealing with changes that
>> impact conformance.
> 
> Perhaps one should then stick with the intent: the missing "h" is
> clearly not a "serious technical flaw" but changing the spec would
> impact on any implementation.
> 
> So I really see no reason to confuse things by making that change (I
> intentionally do not say "correction").
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering