Public Comments 214 to 256

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

Dear TC members,

I had a closer look at the public comments from 214 to 256 (unless they 
came from N-1078) and have made some suggestions how to resolve them.

We may either take this is basis for our discussions today, or we may 
continue today with 257, but agree that everyone interested in this 
matter checks the proposed resolutions until next week, where we then 
accept them as a whole.

For the future, I could imagine that we try to find volunteers that work 
out similar suggestions for other blocks of comments and post them to 
the list, where we reserve us a week to review the suggestions and then 
can accept them as a block.

Best regards

Michael

214: Proposal (for column borders)

215: Namespace URIs in ODF 1.1 specification
- The line breaks within the HTML version are a result of a line break
in the ODF variant that exists so that the URI fits into the enclosing
table cell. Appears to be too minor to correct, and may also happen in
future versions.
Resolution: none
- The space in the "number" namepsace URI is an error. Occurs in 1.0,
1.1 and even 1.2
Resolution: 1.0/1.1 Candidate for an errata
1.2: Correct URI in section 1.3

216: Incorrect reference to XSL for "length"
The reported defect is existing. The correct reference shall be to 5.11
(rather than to 5.9.11)
Resolution: 1.0/1.1 Candidate for an errata
1.2: Correct reference in chapter 17.

217: Question which document (HTML, PDF or ODF) of ODF 1.1 is the
authoritative version.
The OASIS TC process nowadays requires that one of the versions is
declared to be the authoritative document. This was not the case for ODF
1.1.
Resolution: For the future, declare ODF version to be authoritative.

218: Style names in automatic and document styles my conflict
The language has been improved for ODF 1.2 already, but does not cover 
this case.
Resolution: Add some language to 15.1 (AI for Michael)

219: is from N1078

220: classpath
The concerns regarding mentioning a Java classpath (only) seems to be 
justified. The information seems to fit better into the application 
settings:
Resolution: Remove element (this has been discussed already by the 
editors of the database proposals but did not find its way into the TC).

221: Formula SC

222: is from N1078

223: redundant paragraph
The mentioned paragraph is indeed redundant.
Resolution: 1.0/1.1 None (the redundancy does not have any impact that
seems to be worth to be corrected)
1.2: Already resolved by new structured text.


224-231: Are from N1078

232: Usage of <dc:creator>
The note that semantics differ from DC is confusing. What was intended
to say was simply that the person who saved the document at least in
some applications becomes the <dc:creator> of the saved document, 
regardless who previously was recorded as creator.
Resolution: ODF 1.0/1.1: none
ODF 1.2: Remove note, change description to "The <dc:creator> element
specifies the name of the person who *created the document instance*.

233-238: Are from N1078

239: office:target-frame-name vs. meta:target-frame-name
There is only an office:target-frame-name attribute
Resolution: 1.0/1.1 Candidate for an errata
1.2: Already corrected

240: odf 1.1 dc:language value
The descriptions of all elements and attribute that take language values
has been reworked for ODF 1.2. The sentence in question does not exist
any longer.
Resolution: ODF 1.0/1.1: Candidate for an errata
ODF 1.2: Already resolved

241-242: Are from N1078

243: Proposal

244: Proposal

245-249: Are from N1078

250: Request for an example
Resolution: none (The mentioned section is said to be clear, and we 
provide examples only in exceptional cases)

251: Proposal for clarifying the manifest:size attribute
The proposals sounds reasonable
Resolution: 1.0/1.1: none
1.2: Include proposed clarification

252: Unclear "meta:editing-cycles"
Resolution: 1.0/1.1: None
1.2: Remove 2nd paragraph (that is, leave it implementation defined when
the number of editing cycles is updated).

253: Missing meta: prefix for three attributes
Resolution: ODF 1.0/1.1: Candidate for an errata (but may considered to
be substantial)
ODF 1.2: Already resolved

254: Unclear types for meta:user-defined
Resolution: ODF 1.0/1.1: None (the description together with the schema
appears to be clear enough)
ODF 1.2: Already resolved

255: Text content and paragraphs
What is meant with text content here is not the text content of XML
elements, but textual content of the ODF document, for instance
the body text of a document, or the content of a table cell.
Resolution: ODF 1.0/1.1: Candidate for an errata
ODF 1.2: Remove "All text content in an OpenDocument file is contained
in one of these two elements." (It is a result of the ODF design that
textual content is included in these two elements rather than it is a
requirement)

256: related to #210. See there.

-- 
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