RE: [office] Revised ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion

[Hanssens Bart <Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be>]

Mmz, would there be a noticeable difference between saving it as ODF 1.1 vs 1.2 ?
(Outline umbering issue perhaps ?)

Bart

________________________________________
From: Andreas J. Guelzow [andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:30 PM
To: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
Cc: Thorsten Behrens; OpenDocument Mailing List
Subject: Re: [office] Revised ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion

On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 03:37 -0600, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02
- Hamburg wrote:
> Hi Thorsten,
>
> On 06/04/10 23:14, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > I asked:
> >>> Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
> >>> (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
> >>> draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
> >> I think a clarification is missing here - which ODF version will we
> >> use to publish this authoritative document in?
> >>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > so looking into OpenDocument-v1.2-cd05.zip it seems the answer is
> > "1.2" - isn't that a bit self-referential?
>
> It is comment practice. If you look at the various HTML specification,
> then the HTML 3.2 specification is an HTML 3.2 document, the HTML 4.01
> specification is an HTML 4 document, and so on.
>
No. The primary html 4.01 standard is a text file. (At least that's
listed first by w3c.)


Andreas


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