Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next

["Andreas J. Guelzow" <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca>]

On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 18:24 -0700, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 11:59 +0100, Michael Brauer wrote:
> > Hi Andreas,
> > 
> > Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> > 
> > > While I realize that we can't mandate that and in fact have no control
> > > over whether a vendor calls their format ODF1.3 or whatever, I thin kwe
> > 
> > A CSD approval is the first level of approval in the OASIS TC process.
> > So, if we approve an ODF 1.3 draft as CSD, and if an implementor 
> > implements this CSD, why shouldn't that be called ODF 1.3? How would you 
> > call it instead?
> > 
> 
> I don't think successive CSDs would all be called ODF 1.3, without more.
> 
> See the Naming guidelines,
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/ndr/namingDirectives.html, in
> part:

Patrick, we are not talking about what the TC or OASIS calls the various
CSD but what the version string would be that is used in ODF files
created by vendors that implement ODF1.3CSD1. I don't think the version
string should be just "1.3"
> 
> 
> > The process of document revision as a technical activity takes place
> > when an approved Work Product is edited and is assigned a new Working
> > Draft revision number. Textually, a revision is a two-digit number
> > associated with a Working Draft or a specific stage corresponding to a
> > published instance. A revision number begins with "01" and is
> > incremented by 1 for each release at each maturity level (stage).
> 
> Note that "Work Product" means anything voted upon by the committee.
> 

Andreas