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] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments

Mary's response is interesting.

It looks like we have two options.

1. Don't make that relative-path citation change for 17.5 at all, and handle it separately with a replacement for 1.0ed2-cs1, if ever.  We can also more-easily make those changes to ODF 1.1 as well, since it has the same language as 1.0ed2-cs1.

2. Make the change to 17.5 as an OASIS Standard ODF 1.0 change (see my item 4, below) and show the corresponding change to 1.0ed2-cs1 (in a separate erratum entry) as a courtesy to the IS 26300, SC34 folk as we have been doing. We also have the opportunity to roll into an erratum for ODF 1.1 and to have it be straight in ODF 1.2 from the beginning.

We just have to decide what the risk of substantive change is with option 2 (that is, answer the question in item 5, below).

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 09:42
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; office@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: patrick@durusau.net; Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM
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. 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
[ ... ]
> 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.
[ .. ]

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