Re: [office-comment] OASIS ODF 1.0 + Errata 01 != ISO/IEC 26300 + Errata01

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote on 
08/30/2008 05:36:34 PM:

> 08/30/2008 05:39 PM
> 
> Folks,
> 
> In my understanding, ISO/IEC 26300 is not identical to the 
> OASIS standard ODF 1.0.  Rather, it is identical to 
> OASIS ODF 1.0 (Second Edition), which is still a committee 
> specification.
> 
> (A) OASIS ODF 1.0 standard,
> 
> is different from
> 
> (B) ISO/IEC 26300 = OASIS ODF 1.0 (Second Edition)
> 

The texts are not identical. The delta consists of the changes made in 
response to NB comments during the PAS procedures in JTC1.  However, to my 
knowledge, none of these changes are substantive. Similarly, none of the 
changes made in OASIS Approved Errata are substantive.

> 
> The differences between (A) and (B) are summarized in E.3 of 
> the committee specification.  These differences are not minor.
> In particular, (A) still uses URIs, while (B) use IRIs.
> 
> The draft errata does not incorporate the changes made 
> in the committee specification.  Thus, 
> 
> (A') OASIS ODF 1.0 standard + Errata 01
> 
> is different from 
> 
> (B) ISO/IEC 26300
> 
> or 
> 
> (B') ISO/IEC 26300 + Errata 01
> 
> I would argue that the errata should incorporate the changes made 
> in the committee specification so that (A') becomes identical to (B').
> 

We previously had some discussion on this topic on a TC call.  Enumerating 
the changes between ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.0 (second edition) is not trivial at 
the textual level because of the wide-spread change from using IETF to 
using ISO control language. 

It was also observed that ODF vendors have uniformly moved to ODF 1.1 and 
an effort to make widespread non-substantive editorial changes to the ODF 
1.0 text may not be the best investment.

Think of it this way.  ODF 1.0 is Windows XP.  ODF 1.1 is Vista.  ODF 1.2 
is Windows 2009.  Most of our effort is in producing the next version of 
the standard and maintaining the current version of the standard.  Going 
back to the N-1 version to fix spelling errors is not a priority.  But of 
course, we can and should look at any technical flaws. 

An alternative would be to take ODF 1.0 (second edition) (a Committee 
Specification) and add the fixes from our Approved Errata document, and 
have that approved as an OASIS Standard.  So this new "ODF 1.0 (third 
edition)" would be identical to ISO/IEC 26300 + Corrigenda.  This may be 
worth considering once we have caught up with all submitted comments.

But in the end, we prioritize the maintenance according to the needs of 
the vendors and users who are implementing and adopting the standard. They 
are the ones who have the greatest need for up-to-date and accurate 
technical information on ODF.  I have not heard a single vendor or user 
community request that the TC spend time fixing editorial errors in ODF 
1.0.  Not a single one.  I'm not preventing anyone from doing this, of 
course.  But until someone on the TC says, "Rob, I'd like to spend a few 
weeks of my own time adding the editorial changes from ODF 1.0 (second 
edition) back to ODF 1.0" it isn't going to happen.

Regards,

-Rob

> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
> 
> > - The usage of key words for "shall", "may", etc. conforms now to
> >   Annex H of the ISO directives.
> > 
> > - Various ambiguous references were replaced with explicit references
> >   to chapter and section numbers.
> > 
> > - Various spelling and grammatical errors were corrected.
> > 
> > - All occurrences of "unicode" and "UNICODE" were replaced with the
> >   bibliographic reference "[UNICODE]". A bibliographic entry for
> >   Unicode was added to appendix B.
> > 
> > - All occurrences of the term URI, with the exception of one in
> >   appendix E.1, were replaced with the term IRI, because the W3C 
Schema
> >   "anyURI" datatype that is used in the OpenDocument schema actually
> >   takes IRIs rather than URIs. References to [RFC2396]) were replaced
> >   with references to [RFC3987]. In appendix B, the bibliographic entry
> >   for RFC2396 was replaced with one for RFC3987.
> > 
> > - A reference to the RELAX NG DTD Compatibility specification was
> >   added to the second paragraph of section 1.4. A bibliography entry 
for
> >   the RELAX NG DTD Compatibility specification was added to appendix 
B.
> > 
> > - References to [RFC2045] were added to some usages of the term 
> >   "BASE64", and occurrences of "base64" were corrected to "BASE64".
> >   A bibliography entry for RFC2045 has been added to appendix B.
> > 
> > - The description of the draw:z-index attribute in section 9.2.5 was
> >   corrected.
> > 
> > - The references to the W3C CSS3 Text Module were clarified. In
> >   appendix B, the URL "http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-text-20030514
" 
> >   was added to the bibliographic entry for CSS3Text.
> > 
> > - In appendix B, the bibliographic entry for [RNG] now references to
> >   the ISO Relax-NG specification document rather than the OASIS 
Relax-NG
> >   specification document.
> > 
> > - In appendix B, the bibliographic entry for ZIP was updated.
> > 
> > - The contributor list was moved from the title page into an appendix.
> 
> -- 
> This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
> OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC.
> 
> In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
> to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
> before posting.
> 
> Subscribe: office-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> Unsubscribe: office-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> List help: office-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/
> Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> Committee: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office
>