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: Re: [office] OpenDocument TC Coordination Call Minutes 2006-09-11

Please apologize the ambiguity. In the notes, (david) is David Wheeler
(davidW) and not David Faure, as my inconstant usage of the two
notations would have suggested. I'll be taking greater care next time.


Lars Oppermann wrote:
> 1. Dial-In, Roll Call
> Yue Ma, IBM
> Helen Yue, IBM
> Robert Weir, IBM
> Patrick Durusau, Individual
> David Faure, KDE
> Mary McRae, OASIS
> Michael Brauer, Sun
> Lars Oppermann, Sun
> David A. Wheeler, The OpenDocument Foundation
> Bruce D'Arcus, The The OpenDocument Foundation
> Gary Edwards, The The OpenDocument Foundation
> Daniel Vogelheim, The OpenDocument Foundation
> 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes, Action Item Review
> The attending TC members unanimously accepted the minutes from the last
> coordination call.
> 3. Action Items
> - none pending
> 4. A11Y SC Charter
> (michael) ASC would like to adopt charter after delivering formal
> evaluation. update was sent last friday.
> (david) proposal uses the term "ODF Authors" it was not clear to me
> which authors are meant here.
> (bruce) it seems to be clear that document authors are meant
> (david) I agree
> (michael) any objection to the revised charter of the AYC
> - no objection -
> RESOLUTION: the TC accepts the updated version of the Accessibility Sub 
> Committee
> 5. UOF
> (michael) mary joined the call to discuss UOF efforts with us. We
> should start with a short description of what the SC should do
> ... as a comment from ISO (china) we received the request whether UOF and
> ODF could be harmonized. goal would be to have a single office document
> standard in ISO which also addresses the needs of the chinese national 
> body that specifies UOF.
> The problem is, that the ODF TC currently has no knowledge of what makes
> UOF different from ODF, so the mission of the TC is to bring together
> the subject matter expert in order to analyze the two specification and
> identify gaps that would be in ODF in order to be able to express what
> can be expressed in UOF in ODF and also to propose further harmonization
>  steps.
> (rob) yes, this coming from china as they have reached out to us looking
> for ways to make the two formats work better together.
> So we would like to take the opportunity to have some of their experts
> work on the SC and propose to us what gaps could be filled to harmonize
> the formats in terms of markup or conceptional differences.
> (david) they can propose changes to out TC and to UOF
> (mary) this is where it gets tricky, I don't think they can make a
> proposal to UOF directly, but if the people from UOF are part of the SC,
> they could certainly bring suggestions back to UOF.
> (michael) the idea is for people from from UOF to join OASIS. The SC
> might even be run in chinese language. Hence it is stated which
> deliverables would need to be delivered in english language.
> (rob) an example could be 3 (what further steps should be taken...)
> assume numbered lists are different, however they are similar
> conceptually. They could than propose back to UOF with harmonizations
> suggestions
> (mary) we could create a formall liason relationship, but you already
> did that by having people on both groups.
> ...
> (mary) I initially thought that what was in the SC charter was out of
> scope for the TC. But doesn't look like that as it stands now. They
> could also use the comments list but that would be pretty much of a
> one-way communication channel. Especially as there is no formal
> obligation for the TC to act on comments outside of a public review.
> (rob) UOF working group includes government and industry groups. they
> have not submitted to any international group yet.
> (mary) so I would be fine with it from an OASIS perspective
> (rob) does anyone else have an opinion on how we do this
> (davidW) I think we should get started ASAP
> (rob) I hope that helen and MaYue will be able to help
> (patrick) I am very interested in seeing the translated spec
> (MaYue) specification translation to english is underway
> (?) is there also a chinese translation of ODF being done?
> (MaYue) that is not needed
> (rob) we should be able to get started in a month time
> (MaYue) Beijing university is also working on a ODF/OUF conversion
> report which should be available soon, they are already having a converter
> (rob) so there will be even implementation experience in the SC
> (gary) i think this needs high profile approach. we are setting a
> precedent of creating a SC every time we need to harmonize with another
> model. Shouldnt we maybe think about an effort for general harmonization
> (e.g. w/ ECMA)
> (rob) I think it's a good idea and I would consider at some point in the
> future have another SC for ECMA harmonization
> (mary) creating SC is a lightweight enough process
> (rob) I hink the precedent in fact is a good one
> (gary) I agree. i just think there is an occasion here to reach out to
> ecma as well here.
> if the press asks about the UOF SC, the second question will be about ECMA.
> (rob) the work with MSOXML will be much easier when it is an official
> ecma standard, as there is a free copyright grant then
> (michael) any further questions regarding the charter?
> we should than agree on a statement that we would welcome such an
> harmonization effort as proposed in the charter
> - no objection -
> 6. Comments for 1.1
> (michael) Some resolutions were discussed in the last working call. We
> would like to propose voting on those resolutions in a single pass
> Should any of those resolutions be excluded from the vote
> (daniel) if the whitespace issue is in there I would like to drop it
> from the vote
> (michael) ok
> (michael) so we vote for the remaining issues and discuss the whitespace
> issue afterwards
> Any objections to the collected resolution (except whitespace)
> - no objections -
> 6.1 Whitespace
> (daniel) my concern is that the current spec cannot be interpreted in
> the way it was clarified. The spec is ambiguous an mentioning whitespace
> compression and referencing HTML
> (michael) the intent was to allow pretty printing of the textual doc
> specification
> (lars) html retains space in its document model, html does not need to
> export anything
> (michael) so we are almost in agreement and the proposal is to drop the
> reference to HTML and propose our own wording here
> ACTION: michael to propose alternate wording on the mailing list
> (michael) next call will be coordination call
> - call ends -
> 7. New Action Items
> Michael to propose new wording for whitespace handling.
> 8. Next Conference Call
> Coordination call: 2006-09-19 3:00PM-4:00PM UTC

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