RE: [office] Public Comment #217 - Authoritative Version of Specification

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I don't think that the easily-editable form of the specification should be
considered authoritative.  Also, because of device and implementation
differences, font substitutions, page reflow, etc., we have no control over
variations in appearance and the difficulty of associating comments and
defect reports against a fixed-form.

I recommend that the PDF be considered authoritative (and if it could be
digitally signed that would be good too).  This provides more reliable
page-chapter-verse cross-referencing and discussion in reports, submitted
defects, etc.  

 - Dennis 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 05:20
To: OpenDocument Mailing List
Subject: [office] Public Comments 214 to 256

[ ... ]

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.

[ ... ]