RE: [office] 2nd Defect Report

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I also believe the claim about relative paths in the new errata is mistaken.
I am going to dig into the relevant RFCs today to verify that.  (I think
relative paths come into the IRI specification via its application to the
URI specification even though not mentioned directly in the IRI RFC.) 

I really would like some discussion of my proposed rewording at the end of
the discussion between the three of us.  I think it completely covers the
cases that are intended and works in both OASIS Standard ODF 1.0 and IS
26300:2006.  I would like to understand why this is not acceptable.  It is
here:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00103.html

 - Dennis

PS: The observations following the proposal are not part of the
instructions, but provide rationale and other remarks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 06:53
To: Patrick Durusau
Cc: ODF office
Subject: Re: [office] 2nd Defect Report

Patrick,

at least the suggested resolution for SP2-34 would not be correct. What 
is meant here is really a relative-path reference as defined in the 
clarification I have worked out with Murata-san. Replacing 
"relative-path reference" with "relative IRI" would be incorrect and 
would alter the meaning of the paragraph in question in unintended and 
incompatible ways.

[ ... ]