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: ODF 1.2 Draft 1

Dear TC members

I have just uploaded ODF 1.2 draft 1:


What has changed?

Most important: Nothing substantial (at least that's what was intended), but a lot of 
editorial things:

1. Patrick reviewed the specification twice. He found a couple of spelling errors
that we have corrected, and had a couple of suggestion where we may improve the
language or the descriptions of elements and attributes. We already integrated these 
suggestion where possible, or at least added a note there this was not possible.
2. I've made many adaptations to the ISO formatting rules, or prepared a later
adaptation of them where they seem to conflict with OASIS rules. This includes:
- The outline numbering is applied to the fourth level now; the heading structure
   has been adapted to remain consistent with this.
- Examples were moved to the end of clauses where appropriate, or have been
   extracted from the text.
- All tables and figures are centered now and have captions
- Example and notes got captions (as text field, so that the label can be changes easily)
- I've cleaned up the use of styles and removed hard formatting to make further
   adaptations easier.
3. I've run several XSLT based consistency checks for element and attributes names to
find misspelled element or attribute names, and corrected the errors that I found this 
way. (To be more precise: All element and attribute names are marked with the styles 
"Element" and "Attribute". What I did was to check whether the element and attributes 
marked this way in the description are contained in the schema. I did the same with 
literal attribute values.)
4. Patrick regularized the references to other sections.
5. I've replaced some attribute value types "string" in the schema with patterns or other
datatypes that are more precise. That we don't use pattern consistently was a comment we 
received for ODF 1.0.
6. I've also added a few editorial notes for action items that we must not forget.

How do you find what has been changed.
1. Trivial changes, like the correction of spelling errors or language improvements, are 
not marked up.
2. For other changes, I've marked the paragraph where the change occurs with the style 
"Changed". It has a yellow background color. Of course, where is no real border line 
between this class and changes and the trivial changes mentioned above. In doubt, I've 
applied the "Changed" style.
3. Changes to the schema are markup up with a style called "Changed RelaxNG", that also 
has a yellow background color.
4. For all schema changed, and for several other changes, I've added an "editorial note". 
These notes are formatted using the "TODO" paragraph style. It has a yellow background 
color. These notes are not to be intended to remain in the specification.
5. A few times, it seemed to be reasonable to simply remove some text. Where this was the 
case, I've crossed out the text and marked it with a yellow background color. However, I 
did only mark deletions this way then were was no other change for this text.

What's next?

What I will do next is separate the package specification from the main document. We than 
should be able to integrate agreed enhancements to the specification.

In the meantime, I would like to ask you to review the current draft, so that we can 
approve the changes. Ideally we could do so in the conference call in two weeks.

Best regards


Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

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