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?

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 12:54 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> The OASIS's Approved Errata process says:  "Once approved, the Approved 
> Errata shall be with the specification it corrects, in any publication of 
> that specification."
> Of course, it is possible that someone creates a new implementation based 
> on a pre-errata version of ODF 1.0 that they downloaded a year ago. 
> But the intent is:
> 1) The TC's work should be thoroughly reviewed before submitting it for 
> approval at Committee Specification and above.
> 2) That, combined with the 60-day public review at Committee Specification 
> stage, should find any critical technical flaws in the text.
> 3) Once approved as an OASIS Standard, we can fix minor (Not Substantive) 
> errors via the Errata process
> 4) But if some more serious technical flaw is found, especially one that 
> would require modifying existing conformant implementations,  it should be 
> fixed in a new version of the standard.
> Note that a new version does not necessarily mean ODF 1.2.  If we found a 
> set of critical technical errors in ODF 1.0, we could always make an ODF 
> 1.01 version and send that through the approval process.  I'm not 
> recommending this, but that is the route for dealing with changes that 
> impact conformance.

Perhaps one should then stick with the intent: the missing "h" is
clearly not a "serious technical flaw" but changing the spec would
impact on any implementation. 

So I really see no reason to confuse things by making that change (I
intentionally do not say "correction").


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