Re: [office] Evalutions of my proposal wrt. the reqs

["Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>]

Ups.

Sorry --- didn't wanted to confuse anyone.

The consensus proposal seems (http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00202.html) to be off the table right?


Wrt. sub chapter 3.5 in my updated original proposal. It's just a normative sample wrt. to the default style. Forgot to
mention that. It does not change the meaning of the proposal. Its for clarification purposes only.

So again: Sorry. Was in quite a hurry when I wrote this.

So we have the "original proposal" http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00177.html and an updated version
with header numbers and a clarifying section 3.5 in http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00262.html.

All I need at this point is clarification wrt. to the requirement of the TC. Again if F1-F4 are not important to the TC
than we're done. 

~Florian
  


>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems <Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM> 03/26/07 12:02 PM >>>
Florian Reuter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> please find attached an overview of my evaluation results. I'm sorry that I was not able to prive an in depth
> explanation in the given time. I'm happy to justy them in the next con call.
> 
> I must admit that I find Oliver's reqs extremely hard to understand, since they mainly seem to be statements from his
> proposal converted into requirements.
> 
> I also attached a version of my proposal with header numbers in order to be able to reference to them.
> 
> ~Florian

Hi Florian,

sorry, your attached proposal doesn't equal your last given one, which 
you have posted in message 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00202.html. This is 
the one my evaluation is based one.

It also doesn't equal your proposal from message 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00177.html. The 
attached one contains sub chapter 3.5 - this sub chapter doesn't exist 
before.
Thus, I have to say that you are confusing the other TC members by 
saying, that you only attached a version of your proposal with header 
numbers.


Regards, Oliver.