[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Re: #6.8 - Errata Review - Japanese Errata
Patrick, When I reviewed the errata document during its review period, I relied only on information in that document. I was unaware of any relationship to comments received and, in particular, the Japanese Errata that had come in some time ago. So my review was strictly on my ability to apply the errata to the documents and achieve an understandable result, the same as anyone would have to do who would receive the errata document outside of the committee who was unaware of the comments and other defect detections that led to the errata. Since joining the TC, I have more information and I have seen the document referred to as the Japanese Errata. I have not referred to it at all, with my additional review and discussion still being from the same principles. I understand that there have been comments about coverage of the Japanese Errata in this errata document, but I had no way of knowing what the intention was and whether any noticed omissions were accurate, intentional, or inadvertent. So I have not addressed that, nor did I address the items that Murata-san and Michael worked through. In some cases, I found an erratum to be inexplicable, and I wondered what the reported defect actually was and what the rationale was for the fix. Sometimes I suggested alternative resolutions because I did not know the rationale was and what the discussion might have been (and my alternatives have often missed what the original defect was claimed to be). - Dennis PS: I believe it is unfortunate that a rationale is not provided with the errata. I think there should least be a key to whatever comments are believed to be resolved by it. It is very difficult to check those errata items that are not obvious typographical errors in some cases. It seems to me that some sort of rationale should exist within the committee and be referenced in the errata document or its transmittal, if that were possible, for use in checking the errata and accountability for the resolution of comments. This notice should at least be provided during the review-comment period. -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00027.html Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 06:45 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [office] Re: #6.8 - Errata Review Dennis, Do you have a copy of the Japanese errata? The reason I ask is that some of the "errors" you report in my numbering is the result of finding some "other" error than the ones reported by the Japanese defect report. [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]