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] Re: #6.8 - Errata Review - "In-passing errors"


I was not consulting the defect report.  I just happened to see, while
trying to match up the lines, that there was this other line that had
exactly the same problem. (I ran into that line by mistake while checking
the existing errata items and it took extra effort to be sure which were the
correct places to apply the existing errata.) 

So I am pointing out this other place in the same table.  In one sense it is
the same defect, and I am not so literal about scope (since as a reviewer of
the errata as it is disseminated, I have no idea about that - the scope
restriction is not in evidence).

 - Dennis

PS: For me, specifications are like software even though in prose.  That,
together with the prospect of non-native English readers and translators for
other languages, requires extra care.  Handling comments and defect/incident
reports (again, for me) is like dealing with bugs and usability hiccups.
There is what is reported, which may be a symptom, there is the underlying
defect, which needs to be figured out, and then there is finding the places
where the defect is to be remedied.  Asking where else the defect may be
manifest is a natural question when dealing with software and
specifications.  That might be too complicated for a simple erratum/patch
and broader remedies are deferred to a new release, but if one jumps out in
your face, my tendency is to nip that one off too.  Why leave it to trip
people up and having to be found again later when it is in our hot little
hands right now.  

There is also the small matter that, to outsiders, having no knowledge of
and concern for "the scope," seeing an obvious defect be incompletely
corrected will reflect badly on the TC and leave doubts about where else we
are careless about this (from an external perspective). 

In this particular case, if we don't make the change now (arguing that it is
in scope because it is the same defect and it will trip people up to see it
overlooked), it is at least captured now and can go on a growing list of
items for future errata.  Unless ODF 1.0 is declared obsolete or supplanted,
I suspect that another errata document is quite likely. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 08:39
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [office] Re: #6.8 - Errata Review


Another question:

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>           ODF 1.0     IS 26300
> Section   page line   page line
> *9.5.3*  *330* *27*  *334* *29*  [under "T" *** missed ***, same as B and
When you say "missed," do you mean not in the Japanese defect report?

If so, why would it appear in this errata document? (Note I am not 
disagreeing an error exists, but asking about the scope of this 
particular errata document.)

Hope you are having a great day!


[ ... ]

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