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

What if we pulled this item altogether from the draft errata document and 
fixed it in ODF 1.2 only?  What is the downside?  Is the underlying issue 
such that the continued presence of the defect in ODF 1.0 (and ISO/IEC 
26300) will present substantial practical difficulties to an implementor 
or to other users of the standard? 

If not, I'd remove this item from the document.  We can then approve what 
we all agree on and give this item more consideration and possibly add it 
to a future errata document.  Maybe it would fit better on an ODF 1.1 
errata document?   This is certainly within our rights as a TC.  And even 
ISO/IEC process allows a "Further consideration required" response to an 
item in a defect report, so such a decision (provided we approve the 
remaining items in a timely fashion) should be acceptable.


"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
<patrick@durusau.net>, <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>
10/16/2008 12:34 PM
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 

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 

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] 
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


On 10/16/08 08:22, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
[ ... ]

> 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:

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