[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] ODF 1.0 and IS 26300 not technically equivalent
The way the Security Services and other TCs do this is that every item has a number. Numbers 1-10 are the 1st time out, maybe 11 - 32 the second time, etc. You can always do a change mark to let people know what's different, but you have to think about the usability of the document from an end user perspective. They aren't going to go chasing around multiple documents to figure out what's wrong. Mary On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: > Mary, > > True, but won't it be difficult for the OASIS members who are reviewing an errata document to separate out the new errata from the old? Particularly since they are not members of the TC that prepared it? > > Thinking that while there could be a "cumulative" errata document that prevents as you say the search for pieces to put together, that there could be an errata document that is posted for public review that is only the errata for this review. To make it easier for non-TC members to understand what is being proposed as errata. > > The process guidelines don't prescribe a form for errata documents and I think a two format approach would answer the concern about one place for all errata and yet allow better use of the time of members for reviewing errata posted for public review. > > Hope you are at the start of a great week! > > Patrick > > Mary McRae wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> Nothing ever disappears at OASIS. Each document is always maintained at its unique URI and should be sited there. There should not, however, be separate documents each containing some bit, requiring a user (someone other than JTC1) to have to go to multiple locations to try to get all of the relevant pieces. >> Regards, >> >> Mary >> >> >> >> On Feb 1, 2010, at 12:04 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: >> >> >>> Remember, OASIS has made a commitment to JTC1 to work to maintain equivalent specifications in both bodies. Since JTC1 technical corrigenda are individually citable documents, we need to maintain a similar structure in OASIS, if we are to fulfil our obligations. This means that we need to be able to point to ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 01, as well as point to ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 02, and have some assurance that the 01 version does not disappear when the 02 version is approved. >>> >>> Is this going to be a problem? A cumulative errata document is fine. But depending on how you are using the word "single", I may have a problem with what you are saying. >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> wrote on 02/01/2010 11:16:05 AM: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Re: [office] ODF 1.0 and IS 26300 not technically equivalent >>>> >>>> So as not to prolong the discussion any further - this is a single, cumulative errata document for any OASIS Standard. >>>> Mary >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:06 AM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 02/01/2010 10:51:01 AM: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Sure, but the effect of a cumulative errata document can be achieved >>> in >>>>> three ways: >>>>> 1) by referencing the changes of previous errata in the most-recent >>> errata >>> >>>>> 2) by including the changes of previous errata verbatim in the >>> most-recent >>>>> errata >>>>> 3) by merging the changes of previous errata into the most-recent >>> errata >>>>> at the level of an individual erratum. >>>>> >>>>> These all allow the reader to derive the exact same specification in >>> the >>>>> end. But they differ in some important ways in our ability to >>> maintain >>>>> equivalent specifications in OASIS and JTC1. >>>>> >>>>> -Rob >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> 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 >> >> > > -- > 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) >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]