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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

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

Subject: [office] OpenDocument TC Work Call Minutes 2006-08-14

1. Dial-In, Roll Call

Nathaniel Borenstein, IBM
Robert Weir, IBM
Yue Ma, IBM
Helen Yue, IBM
Patrick Durusau, Individual
Michael Brauer, Sun Microsystems
Lars Oppermann, Sun Microsystems
Gary Edwards, The OpenDocument Foundation
David Wheeler, The OpenDocument Foundation

Dhananjay Keskar, Intel

2. Minutes Approval

The attending TC members unanimously accepted the minutes from the last
work call.

3. Action Items

- no action items

4. Unified Document Format (UOF)

(Rob) there is interest from users of UOF in China to harmonize ODF and 
UOF. Maybe merging the features of both or improving interoperability.
Currently all the UOF work (spec, schema) is in Chinese language. It is 
currently being translated to English.
I propose the formation of a sub-committee that asses the 
interoperability and works out recommendations on how to best harmonize 
the two formats. A bit like we did with A11Y.
(DavidW) this sounds like a sensible thing to do. I we might need a 
similar effort for the MS schemas
(Nath) I think UOF is similar to ODF. It will take longer, since there 
is more detail than with A11Y
(Rob) UOF originally intended to submit their format to ISO as a third 
standard for office documents...
(Michael) Doing the analyzes in a SC is a good idea. We need an initial 
assessment on the differences of the two formats in order to come up 
with a strategy on how to harmonize them.
(Lars) If UOF was to become able to express anything that UOF can 
express, what would be the reason to have UOF at all?
(YueMa) The body format/structure of UOF is different from ODF
(Rob) I will try to identify the people from UOF that are interested in 
this a propose a draft charter for a SC
(DavidW) I found a report from people working UOF, claiming that ODF 
uses too many attributes and that UOF tries to use more elements. Not 
sure what to make of that and what their problem with attributes is
I'd like to have more explanation of their design decisions...
(Michael) I'd very much like to support the formation of an SC for this.
We need to identify the members/chair and we need the UOF translation. 
It is supposed to be finished in September
(DavidW) what would be the goal of the SC? Translation/transformation 
between ODF and UOF or extension of ODF to be able to express UOF features?
(Rob) don't know whether they just want interop, or whether they might 
be even looking  for ODF 2.0 to become the next UOF
(Michael) We must gain an understanding of the differences of the two 
formats before we can embark on any such discussion.
(Rob) for the SC, we should use a two-phase approach like we did with 

5. Comments for 1.1
(Michael) I am not aware of any non TC submissions, but as there were 
mail server problems I will need to check the comment archives for any 
ACTION: Michael to check for comments on 1.1
(Michael) Comments I am currently aware of are
1. Daniel Carrera on change tracking and
2. Malte on an editorial error in the soft-page-breaks section

(Michael) I am not sure hwo we decide whther those changes would be 
substantial or not
(Lars) I assume that the TC needs to decide whether any changes are 
significant or not. We should use transparent criteria to do this.
(Michael) The comments already contain proposals. I will summarize those 
so that we can decide on their inclusion and significance in the next 
coordination call.

ACTION: Michael to summarize 1.1 comments

6. New Action Items
ACTION: Michael to check for comments on 1.1
ACTION: Michael to summarize 1.1 comments

7. Next conference call

coordination call: 2006-08-21, 3:00PM-4:00PM UTC

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