RE: [office] Public Comments from N1078

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

OK, based on the discussion on today's call, I will review the N1078 items
against cd01 to see what might require resolution there.    

I will turn in blocks of those each week with the goal of having them all
there in time for cd03 if not cd02.  A couple (such as revisiting 17.5 one
more time) are going to take more work on our part at some point.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 06:58
To: 'Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM'; 'OpenDocument Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [office] Public Comments from N1078

I am not sure why the ones from N1078 are being passed over.  They have not,
to my knowledge been reviewed in one of these discussions.  Also, my
assigning of "Candidate for Errata" was very cursory and without discussion
(and no consideration of the severity levels that were proposed since).

Can we clarify what the assumption is about what is happening with the N1078
ones and who has the action for the next step?  I think I may have it but I
have not been taking it seriously enough.  I will repent, but I want clarity
first.

 - Dennis 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 05:20
To: OpenDocument Mailing List
Subject: [office] Public Comments 214 to 256

Dear TC members,

I had a closer look at the public comments from 214 to 256 (unless they 
came from N-1078) and have made some suggestions how to resolve them.


[ ... ]

219: is from N1078

[ ... ]

222: is from N1078

[ ... ]

224-231: Are from N1078

[ ... ]

233-238: Are from N1078

[ ... ]

241-242: Are from N1078

[ ... ]

245-249: Are from N1078

[ ... ]