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] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

Andreas poses a good question.  I want to supplement Rob Weir's response (we
are crossing in the mail) posted at

1. My understanding of the errata procedures is that we need some way to
accomplish this requirement from the OASIS Technical Committee Process:

"Once approved, the Approved Errata shall be with the specification it
corrects, in any publication of that specification. Disposition of Approved
Errata must be identified in the subsequent Public Review Draft of the
corrected specification."

2. I suspect that it would be good to follow the W3C practice of mentioning
in every specification where any errata for it are to be found (and there
might be a simple placeholder when no errata have [yet] been approved).  [I
am not sure how that works, or if it can work, in an edition provided as the
text for an ISO/IEC specification.]

3. The question also raises the prospect that there are those who are
working from ODF 1.0 specifications and only implementing ODF 1.0 by virtue
of the fact that they are relying on the ISO/IEC IS 26300 specification as
their authority.  We need to consider that this may be a requirement in
various international settings.

4. INSTANT CONCERNS.  On first principles, one might consider that the way
to resolve this is by deprecation starting in 1.1-1.2, with the introduction
of the preferred attribute-name spelling there, leaving 1.0 along (or even
correcting the text to have the treshold spelling too!).  Being practical,
it would be great to get the correction into 1.0, but it seems this will
depend on how that can be deal with at ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34, and whether that
can happen reasonably quickly.  While this is up in the air, it would be
good to consult with those who have or are implementing 1.1 and anticipatory
1.2s just how much trouble the deprecation of -treshold is, along with
support for it and -threshold.  I am also concerned that an errata review
period might not be noticed sufficiently to ensure that implementers notice,
especially beyond the current group of interested parties.  

More to ponder ...

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas J. Guelzow [mailto:aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca] 
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 09:27
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 09:52 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 6) If any TC member knows of an ODF 1.0 implementation that would require 
> modification in order to remain compliant with the proposed schema change,

> then they should speak up and say so.  We can always take this change out.

>  But, for example, if implementations generally do not implement this 
> attribute, or if they silently have already made the spelling correction 
> in their implementations, then this may not be a problem.  By having 
> review on the TC as well as a 15-day public review, we give any 
> implementation, whether represented on the TC or not, a fair opportunity 
> to make this point.

What about ODF 1.0 implementations that do not exist yet? Is it
understood that any new ODF 1.0 implementation will have no follow the

Andreas J. Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>
Andreas J. Guelzow

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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