Re: [office] More comments on ODF 1.0 2nd errata?

[Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM>]

On 1/28/10 4:26 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:

4B61ACBA.8050003@sun.com" type="cite"> ..

1. Comment: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201001/msg00289.html
   Amendment: No Action so far, shall we change the wording in ODF 1.0 that the feature is 'implementation dependent'?
   If so, I would move those notes into the table with a changed wording.

Amendment: Exchange 'implementation defined' with 'implementation dependent' in the notes.

I was blind for this mistake, thank you Patrick!
If I remember it well 'implementation defined' means the implementation have to explicitly define 'somewhere', how it handles this feature when it wants to apply to the standard.
Which causes a problem if implementation that had not defined their behavior for ODF 1.0 previously, they would suddenly would no longer support ODF 1.0 after that errata. Right?

The one question remains: shall we change the wording in the spec and for this move the change from the notes to the table?

Regards,
Svante