ODF 1.0 and IS 26300 not technically equivalent

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

The substantive content of IS 26300 is identical to the ODF 1.0 edition 2 Committee Specification.  There are substantive differences between ODF 1.0 edition 2 CS and the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard.  We should not claim otherwise in the text of our Errata 02.  

Unfortunately, we can only make Errata against the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard (and separately against the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard).

We're OK unless an erratum falls on an area where the two specifications are different. (Section 17.5 is such a case.  In particular, they reference different IETF RFCs.)  This is very screwy and I don't think we have dealt with it very well.

Finally, there is at least one remaining production error in Errata 01 that could be corrected in a cumulative Errata.  

I also think I understand Mary's assumption that Errata documents are cumulative.  According to the current TC procedure, it is permissible to accompany the Errata with a version of the approved standard that has revision marking showing application of the Errata.  It seems to me that such a revision marking should always be possible, whether circulated or not, and has to be against the approved standard (since nothing else has standing for application of Errata).  Consequently, the revision marking must be cumulative and so must the Errata document that the revision marking corresponds to.  

 - Dennis

PS: There is a peculiar value to a cumulative errata for the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard. We will need to transform it selectively into a single Errata document for the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard and take that to JTC1 SC34 WG6 at some point, possibly during the FPDAM process that amends IS 26300 to align with ODF 1.1.

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org