Re: [office] JIRA Issues for 12 October 2015 TC Teleconference

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Michael,

Just quickly, I will respond to your specific comments, probably tomorrow.

Sure, I can re-sort the issues to ascending. It was just an artifact of 
the export from JIRA. No conscious choice on my part.

I will be updating JIRA as we agreed on the call and I need to get that 
done tomorrow as well.

Thanks for the comments!

Hope you are having a great week!

Patrick

On 10/05/2015 12:05 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 28.09.2015 20:27, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> > Greetings!
> >
> > Another rough bundle of JIRA issues with notes, etc. for discussion at
> > our next teleconference.
> hi Patrick,
>
> thanks for sending these.
>
> the issues are sorted in descending order, would it be possible to sort
> them ascending?
>
> in the last meeting we went through them in descending order too, and
> now we still have issues 353 - 228 outstanding from that, and the issues
> 426 - 602 are "done"; if we use ascending order then we will always have
> a "lowest numbered un-discussed issue", which seems easier to me.
>
> also, for those issues where we agreed on deferring to ODF-Next or
> closing, did we discuss who is going to make those changes in JIRA?  can
> any TC member do that, or do the chairs want to do it themselves?
>
> since i have some time now, here are some comments about these issues:
>
>
> * OFFICE-638 OFFICE-657 OFFICE-659
>
> i'd rather not resolve anything as a duplicate of OFFICE-659 since that
> is a rather confusing comment that mingles 2 different issues, the FFT
> function and the "function to call external program" idea of OFFICE-513,
> and on top of that wants to define the term "Real Freedom".
>
> better to resolve OFFICE-659 as a duplicate and point to OFFICE-513 and
> OFFICE-638 for its 2 issues.
>
> OFFICE-657 is a reply to the mail from OFFICE-638. the surviving issue
> should get target ODF-Next.
>
>
> * OFFICE-645
>
> my guess is that this refers to 9.4.12 <table:named-range> and/or 9.4.13
> <table:named-expression>, neither of which allow an xml:id attribute, so
> closing them with "just use RDF" appears premature.
>
>
> * OFFICE-688
>
> the unresolved part of it is the proposal to move to something other
> than XML Schema-2 data types - i have no idea what the benefit of that
> would be or why we should do that.
>
>
> * OFFICE-737
>
> ODF 1.2 was released with that attribute name and we don't want to break
> compatibility so close this one.
>
>
> * OFFICE-752, OFFICE-758
>
> these are clearly duplicates; despite the subject OFFICE-752 has nothing
> to do with SUMMARY() as the author has just hi-jacked an existing email
> thread.
>
> however after attempting to read the attached document, it is completely
> unclear to me what the requested function should actually do.
>
>
> regards,
>   michael

--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau