RE: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments

["Mary McRae" <marypmcrae@gmail.com>]

The view from where I'm sitting:

ISO 26300 is *not* ODF 1.0. It is ODF 1.0 2nd Edition. ODF 1.0 2nd Edition is a Committee Specification; not an OASIS Standard. Changes to Committee Specifications are not processed via Errata; instead, changes are made to the spec, a new Committee Draft is issued, a 15-day public review follows if substantive changes are made, followed by a new ballot for Committee Specification status. 

Regards,

Mary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:28 PM
> To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: patrick@durusau.net; Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM
> Subject: RE: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments
> 
> Michael to answer your question:
> 
> 1. To make the comparable change in the OASIS Standard ODF 1.0, we
> would need to make changes in most of the section to have it become the
> same as the section in IS 26300 (with its errata changes).  That is
> because of the title, the use of URI where IRI is wanted, and to
> provide correct editing instructions.
> 
> 2. We can do that.  My recommendation for doing that is to have a
> separate 17.5 erratum that only changes The OASIS Standard section, in
> addition tot he one that only changes the IS 26300 section.  To attempt
> to accomplish all of that in one erratum where the changes required are
> quite different seems simply unworkable to me.
> 
> 3. I had hoped to avoid that work so we might avoid another discussion
> about substantive changes *and* to deal with the SC34 defect report.
> It is my understanding that the SC34 defect report is not about the
> OASIS Standard ODF 1.0.  It is about IS 26300:2006.  What we are
> stumbling over is the fact that this is a place where IS 26300 and
> OASIS ODF 1.0 are different and can't be resolved against the defect
> report using identical corrections.
> 
> That is my thinking.
> 
> 4. I see no technical problem with making the change to align OASIS ODF
> 1.0 with IS 26300:2006 (ODF 1.0ed2-cs1 for us), but I don't believe it
> is appropriate to attempt it by adjusting just the one paragraph in the
> same erratum as the change to IS 26300.
> 
> 5. QUESTION: Is it appropriate and desired that we retrofit the IS
> 26300 modifications (after application of errata) to the OASIS Standard
> ODF 1.0 specification via the errata?
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> PS: I don't know the answer to the question.  I'm concerned that it is
> a substantial matter.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM]
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200810/msg00078.html
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 03:39
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org; patrick@durusau.net
> Subject: Re: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> On 10/16/08 08:22, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200810/msg00077.html
> [ ... ]
> 
> > RECOMMENDATION:
> >
> > 3. I changed the paragraph to be replaced to have the IS 26300 text,
> not the ODF 1.0 text.
> 
> The errata is an errata for ODF 1.0. I therefor think it does not work
> to have only the ISO 26300 text here, because this simply does not
> exist
> in the ODF 1.0 document for which we provide the errata.
> 
> I have no objections to providing the ISO 26300 in addition to the ODF
> 1.0 text.
> 
> >
> > 4. I indicated that the change is not to be made only to IS 26300 and
> not to OASIS ODF 1.0.
> >
> > This becomes an accurate change for IS 26300:2006.  The change is not
> needed for OASIS ODF 1.0.
> 
> But we are creating an errata for ODF 1.0, not ISO 26300. The only
> reference to RFC2396 is the one in section 17.5. We do not get
> inconsistent if we replace that with a reference RFC3986 and RFC3987.
> We
> did that for ODF 1.0 2nd edition already.
> 
> Why don't we just update the ODF 1.0 specification by the errata to
> what
> we have in ODF 1.0 2nd edition/ISO 26300 anyway, of cause with applying
> the additional errata we are discussing here? The only thing that was
> missing is an additional reference to RFC3987.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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