OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office-comment] Comments on ODF 1.0 Errata 01 Committee Draft 02


> First of all, the paragraph you are referring to here is not subject of 
> the errata. The errata corrects the last paragraph of section 17.5 only.

Agreed as far as my first point is concerned.  I will send another
e-mail about this to this ML, incorporate it in the second defect 
report from Japan, and wait for two months.

However, I would argue that my other points are very relevant to the
subject of this technical corrigenda.

First, the correction to 17.5 appears to try to address #70 in the
Japanese defect report.

> 70.  The last para of 17.5
>    All other kinds of IRI references, namely the ones that start with a
>    protocol (like http:), an authority (i.e., //) or an absolute-path 
>    (i.e., /) do not need any special processing. This especially means that
>    absolute-paths do not reference files inside the package, but within
>    the hierarchy the package is contained in, for instance the file system.
>    IRI references inside a package may leave the package, but once they
>    have left the package, they never can return into the package or
>    another one.
> First, an absolute IRI reference begins with a scheme (rather than protocol), 
> and it does not start with an authority or an absolute-path.  

This point has not been addressed, since the corrected wording still
allows IRI references to start with an absolute-path.  I believe that
best way to address it is to rely on RFCs 3986 and 3987 wihout trying to 
normatively summarize what is specified there.  Less is more.  Therefore,
I would argue that my second and third points are very relevant to #70 in N0942.

Second, the correction to 15.31.4 appears to  try to address #79 in the
Japanese defect report.

> 79.  Attribute names in 15.31.4 "Tick Marks" 
> Two attributes (chart:axis-interval-major and
> chart:axis-interval-minor) appear in the body text, while four
> different attributes, (chart:tick-marks-major-inner,
> chart:tick-marks-major-outer, chart:tick-marks-minor-inner, and
> chart:tick-marks-minor-outer) appear in the schema.

This original comment did question the  attribute name "chart:axis-interval-major".
I am merely reforumating my original comment, which has not been 
addressed yet.


MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]