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] Groups - OpenDocument-v1.2-committeeDraft-01 -- Schemas?

Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com> wrote on 02/25/2009 03:52:17 PM:
> I'm confused about the status of the document that was voted on last
> week.  In 2.18 Specification Quality (http://www.oasis-open.org/
> committees/process.php#specQuality), there is this sentence:
> "All TC-approved versions of documents (i.e. Committee Drafts, 
> Public Review Drafts, and Committee Specifications) must be 
> delivered to the TC?s document repository in the (1) editable 
> source, (2) HTML or XHTML, and (3) PDF formats; and the TC must 
> explicitly designate one of those delivered formats as the 
> authoritative document."
> The minutes of the 2/16 meeting state that there was "Approval of 
> OpenDocument v1.2 draft 9 as Committee Draft," so it sounds to me 
> like we need to publish in the three formats listed above, which are
> required for Committee Drafts (as well as Public Review Drafts).  Is
> there a reason that sentence doesn't apply?  I mention this because 
> we're proactively asking for public feedback on ODF v-next, and I 
> assume we'd want to assure the broadest possible readership for the 
> Committee Draft so that people can understand what's in it when they
> make their suggestions.

The status is Committee Draft. The clause you point to refers to what 
happens after a CD is approved.  It is a fair point.  Patrick should go 
ahead, as he usually does, and upload PDF and HTML versions corresponding 
to the approved ODF version.  We had to do this with the Approved Errata a 
few weeks back as well.


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