[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments
The view from where I'm sitting: ISO 26300 is *not* ODF 1.0. It is ODF 1.0 2nd Edition. ODF 1.0 2nd Edition is a Committee Specification; not an OASIS Standard. Changes to Committee Specifications are not processed via Errata; instead, changes are made to the spec, a new Committee Draft is issued, a 15-day public review follows if substantive changes are made, followed by a new ballot for Committee Specification status. Regards, Mary > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:28 PM > To: office@lists.oasis-open.org > Cc: patrick@durusau.net; Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM > Subject: RE: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments > > Michael to answer your question: > > 1. To make the comparable change in the OASIS Standard ODF 1.0, we > would need to make changes in most of the section to have it become the > same as the section in IS 26300 (with its errata changes). That is > because of the title, the use of URI where IRI is wanted, and to > provide correct editing instructions. > > 2. We can do that. My recommendation for doing that is to have a > separate 17.5 erratum that only changes The OASIS Standard section, in > addition tot he one that only changes the IS 26300 section. To attempt > to accomplish all of that in one erratum where the changes required are > quite different seems simply unworkable to me. > > 3. I had hoped to avoid that work so we might avoid another discussion > about substantive changes *and* to deal with the SC34 defect report. > It is my understanding that the SC34 defect report is not about the > OASIS Standard ODF 1.0. It is about IS 26300:2006. What we are > stumbling over is the fact that this is a place where IS 26300 and > OASIS ODF 1.0 are different and can't be resolved against the defect > report using identical corrections. > > That is my thinking. > > 4. I see no technical problem with making the change to align OASIS ODF > 1.0 with IS 26300:2006 (ODF 1.0ed2-cs1 for us), but I don't believe it > is appropriate to attempt it by adjusting just the one paragraph in the > same erratum as the change to IS 26300. > > 5. QUESTION: Is it appropriate and desired that we retrofit the IS > 26300 modifications (after application of errata) to the OASIS Standard > ODF 1.0 specification via the errata? > > - Dennis > > PS: I don't know the answer to the question. I'm concerned that it is > a substantial matter. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200810/msg00078.html > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 03:39 > To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org > Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org; patrick@durusau.net > Subject: Re: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments > > Dennis, > > On 10/16/08 08:22, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200810/msg00077.html > [ ... ] > > > RECOMMENDATION: > > > > 3. I changed the paragraph to be replaced to have the IS 26300 text, > not the ODF 1.0 text. > > The errata is an errata for ODF 1.0. I therefor think it does not work > to have only the ISO 26300 text here, because this simply does not > exist > in the ODF 1.0 document for which we provide the errata. > > I have no objections to providing the ISO 26300 in addition to the ODF > 1.0 text. > > > > > 4. I indicated that the change is not to be made only to IS 26300 and > not to OASIS ODF 1.0. > > > > This becomes an accurate change for IS 26300:2006. The change is not > needed for OASIS ODF 1.0. > > But we are creating an errata for ODF 1.0, not ISO 26300. The only > reference to RFC2396 is the one in section 17.5. We do not get > inconsistent if we replace that with a reference RFC3986 and RFC3987. > We > did that for ODF 1.0 2nd edition already. > > Why don't we just update the ODF 1.0 specification by the errata to > what > we have in ODF 1.0 2nd edition/ISO 26300 anyway, of cause with applying > the additional errata we are discussing here? The only thing that was > missing is an additional reference to RFC3987. > > [ ... ] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]