Re: Working Draft for ODF 1.1 (Second Edition)?

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 03/27/2011 
07:24:37 PM:

> Working Draft for ODF 1.1 (Second Edition)?
> 
> As part of compiling ODF 1.1 Errata 01, I will be making a change-
> marked version of the OASIS ODF 1.1 Specification, reflecting the 
> change that is needed to reflect the ODF 1.0 Errata 02 plus the IS 
> 26300 COR1, COR2, and AMD1 (where they have deviations we must 
anticipate). 
> 
> My intention is to use those change-markings as the basis for the 
> individual ODF 1.1 Errata 01 instructions.  I find this to be the 
> most-reliable way to go about this.
> 
> It strikes me that the final change-marked version, once there is 
> clean alignment between ODF 1.1 + its errata and the amended IS 
> 26300, will be a suitable basis for an ODF 1.1 (Second Edition) 
> Committee Specification 01. 
> 

Hi Dennis,  Do you think it will be necessary to have an ODF 1.1 (second 
edition) CS?  In particular, do you see a need for any changes to ODF 1.1 
that go beyond the non-substantive changes that may be made via Approved 
Errata?

Note that 3.5 of the OASIS TC Process says:

"A TC may approve a set of Errata to an OASIS Standard which it developed 
as "Approved Errata" by: 
(a) Adopting the set of proposed corrections as a Committee Specification 
Draft, in the form of a list of changes, and optionally accompanied by a 
copy of the original OASIS Standard text marked to incorporate the 
proposed changes."
So this suggests that we may not need to have an ODF 1.1 CS, but it would 
be sufficient to have an ODF 1.1 Approved Errata CSD, accompanied by a 
marked up version of ODF 1.1 that includes the corrections.
Does that make sense?

-Rob