Re: [office] Additional Ballot Comments (China)

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>
wrote on 06/05/2006 07:33:53 PM:

> Quick background, for those who weren't on the teleconference today:
> We have the official comments from ISO about OpenDocument Format,
> and they've all been carefully examined. However, there is a rumor
> that China had submitted comments to ISO, and that somehow
> their comments didn't get into the transmission from ISO to OASIS.
> We (OASIS TC members) have no way of knowing if this is true
> or not, and it's hard to respond to comments we don't have anyway
:-).
> Robert Weir had some text that _might_ be the Chinese comments
> or an early draft of them. We certainly _DO_ want to respond to
> concerns from China, if there are any. We don't know if the text he
has are
> actually China's comments, though; there might not even BE comments
> from China. So Weir posted to this group what he had,
> with the caveat that this may not be China's comments.
> 
> Robert, thanks for sending us the informal text that _might_ be
> China's comments (or an early draft of them)
> on the Open Document Format (ODF).
> Whether or not they are China's comments, it'd be worth briefly
> running them down. That way, we'll be better-prepared to
> support any issues China has.
> 

Another way of looking at it.  There are comments
(little 'c') and  Comments (big 'C').  These are certainly at
least Chinese "comments".  But they are only official Comments
if they were submitted by the correct deadline, to the correct place, with
the correct accreditation and approvals, in the correct format, etc.  This
is the point under dispute.  

We (via Patrick, our Project Editor) are obligated
to respond to every Comment in a "Comment Disposition Report"
which is returned to ISO.  Our Comment Disposition Report would be
in bad form if it lacked a national body's Comments.   Thus, the importance
of resolving the status of these particular [C|c]omments.

-Rob