Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Patrick,

On 09/25/08 10:28, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I did some research, and noticed that we by intention did not include 
>> this schema change into ODF 1.0 2nd edition, but ODF 1.1 only:
>>
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200605/msg00098.html
>>
>> I therefore suggest that we do not revert this decision, but simply 
>> omit that change in the errata.
>>
> OK, but you say in that post:
> 
>> I'm currently preparing a new draft which corrects the spelling 
>> errors, except those in the schema. While the spelling errors in the 
>> schema are clear spelling errors, too, I believe the best way to 
>> correct them is to add correct spelled attributes/attribute values to 
>> the schema for a 1.1, and to declare the misspelled ones to be 
>> depricated.
> That would imply to me that *if* we were to fix this in ODF 1.0 second 
> edition, that we would add the corrected attribute and deprecate the 
> mis-spelled one.
> 
> Yes?

This is one option. The options we discussed for ODF 1.1 are here:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200606/msg00075.html

We actually decided to take option b), that is, to just correct the 
errors in the schema. This still may be an option for the ODF 1.0 
errata, too.

However, since we received the error report for 15.27.22 already and 
resolved it already by making a change in ODF 1.1 although we could have 
made a change in ODF 1.0 2nd edition, I think it is valid to refer to 
that resolution, rather than reverting that resolution.

Michael
> 
> Just checking to see if we were to fix it, how you are reading our prior 
> action.
> 
> Hope you are having a great day!
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
>> Best regards
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/25/08 03:19, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>> Dennis,
>>>
>>> Well, while I agree as to what the OASIS rules say now, isn't it 
>>> simply the case that we need a new set of rules?
>>>
>>> Why not use this to illustrate how lame the current errata process is 
>>> in fact and suggest a new set of rules that cover both editorial as 
>>> well as technical errors.
>>>
>>> My suggestion would be to have editorial errors, for either committee 
>>> specifications or OASIS standards to be approved only by a TC vote. 
>>> Technical errors would require a TC vote and then a thirty day 
>>> default ballot of the general membership (in other words, if you 
>>> don't vote, you automatically approve). Simply majority wins.
>>>
>>> That would put all fixes within a 45 day time frame, assuming we all 
>>> moved at top speed.
>>>
>>> True, we would have to define editorial and technical but I suspect 
>>> we could steal something along those lines. All told, less than a 
>>> page of text and a process that would get TC's back into the business 
>>> of fixing their work and out of the check list chase that is the 
>>> present process.
>>>
>>> I can outline a proposed new errata process along the lines I suggest 
>>> above fairly quickly if anyone is interested in pursuing a more 
>>> systematic solution.
>>>
>>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>> While we are thinking this over prior to the next call, I have some 
>>>> further
>>>> observations:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The only schema file for ODF 1.0 on the OASIS site has the -treshold
>>>> spelling (although the 1.1 schema has -threshold).  This is not 
>>>> normative,
>>>> but it is something to keep in mind.
>>>>
>>>> 2. We do not know if translations of the specification carry the 
>>>> -treshold
>>>> and -threshold spellings in literal attribute names and translate 
>>>> otherwise
>>>> when threshold is used in the title and in the prose.  So a developer
>>>> concluding there is a misspelling in the schema may be a little less
>>>> obvious.
>>>>
>>>> 3. If no ODF 1.0 implementation has ever supported 
>>>> style:wrap="dynamic" we
>>>> would be off the hook.  The one problem is with ODF 1.0 implementations
>>>> evidently still being provided and used in order to be IS 26300 
>>>> compliant.
>>>>  - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> PS: I agree that the easiest way out of this situation is if we 
>>>> could simply
>>>> make the correction in the ODF 1.0 specifications.  Other 
>>>> resolutions (since
>>>> it is changed in 1.1 and we expect that change to continue into 1.2) 
>>>> are far
>>>> messier (unless the feature is still not implemented).
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
>>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00083.html
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 04:49
>>>> To: Doug Mahugh
>>>> Cc: Andreas J. Guelzow; office@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?
>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>> The section in question reads as follows:
>>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> Dynamic Wrap Threshold
>>>>
>>>> The style:wrap-dynamic-threshold attribute is evaluated only if the
>>>> style:wrap attribute has a value of dynamic. It specifies the minimum
>>>> distance between the page or column border and the object for which
>>>> wrapping will be enabled.
>>>> <define name="style-graphic-properties-attlist" combine="interleave">
>>>>     <optional>
>>>>         <attribute name="style:wrap-dynamic-treshold">
>>>>             <ref name="nonNegativeLength"/>
>>>>         </attribute>
>>>>     </optional>
>>>> </define>
>>>> ******
>>>>
>>>> The error report in question is:
>>>>
>>>> ******
>>>> The first para in 15.27.22 says style:wrap-dynamic-threshold, while
>>>> the schema fragment in this subsection says 
>>>> style:wrap-dynamic-treshold.
>>>> ("h" between "t" and "r" is missing.)
>>>> ******
>>>>
>>>> We have spelled the attribute name correctly one time (in the
>>>> description), and one time incorrectly (in the schema). The heading 
>>>> also
>>>> says "Threshold". This means that the spelling in fact is inconsistent,
>>>> and the question actually is what implementors reading the 
>>>> specification
>>>> would assume what the name of the attribute is. My personal opinion is
>>>> that implementors notice the inconsistency, assume that it was not our
>>>> intention to misspell the attribute, and implement it with the correct
>>>> spelling. I further would assume that they do not implement a 
>>>> misspelled
>>>> attribute name (if the spelling is correct in the description) without
>>>> notifying us about the issue or asking us what our intention was. I
>>>> therefore think that the correction of the misspelled word is not
>>>> substantive, even if it occurs in the schema. Please note that my
>>>> conclusion would be different if either "treshold" would be a correct
>>>> spelled word, or if we would have misspelled it in the description and
>>>> the heading, too.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway that is my personal opinion, and I do understand that others 
>>>> come
>>>> to a different conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion for resolving this issue is that we continue to discuss
>>>> this on the mailing list until the end of this week. We may then have a
>>>> small ballot in the TC on Monday whether or not to include this
>>>> resolution in the errata before we conduct the other three votes
>>>> required to start a public review of the draft.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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:
>>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering