RE: [office] Comments on draft response

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

It is if we say it is. 

I am not talking about the letter of the law but an errata document that is
consistent with other ones this would be used in conjunction with (since it
does not replace errata 01), and that is available on the OASIS site.

I gather from the call that it is the will of the committee that the
response (perhaps retitled appropriately) is considered enough and therefore
all we will be doing for the next ODF 1.0 errata document.

I am not pleased about that.  I accept that is the unanimous consent around
the question.

 - Dennis 

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 07:07
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] Comments on draft response

OASIS defines "errata" as a "set of proposed corrections...in the form of 
a list of changes, and optionally accompanied by a copy of the original 
specification text marked to incorporate the proposed changes"

So how is this not an errata draft?

-Rob





From:
"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To:
"'Patrick Durusau'" <patrick@durusau.net>, "'ODF office'" 
<office@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
08/10/2009 09:50 AM
Subject:
RE: [office] Comments on draft response



I am confused about what it is we are doing here.  I apologize for not
taking my first look until this morning.

Elsewhere, we have been referring to the creation of an ODF 1.0 Errata 02. 
 

This document is not an Errata document.  It is a specific response to 
SC34
and N1078.

So I don't understand how this relates to having achieved the start of a
public comment period, etc., etc. 

I had (foolishly?) expected that we were building a supplemental document 
in
the fashion of ODF 1.0 Errata 01.

I am willing to review this for what it is.  I don't regard it as a
substitute for an errata document.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 04:59
To: ODF office
Subject: [office] Comments on draft response

Greetings!

Just quickly before I hop into a cab.

Andreas has suggested that the responses to JP2-18, JP2-23, JP2-25, 
JP2-27, JP2-29 are insufficient.

In the alternative he has suggested that we simply say these 
capabilities are application defined (for cases where we don't 
sufficiently define something for it to be implemented). To be corrected 
in 1.2 of course.

BTW, note the typo in JP2-34. The reference should be to JP2-35.

Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 





---------------------------------------------------------------------
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