RE: [office] Comments on draft response

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

Here are some problems that I notice with this approach.

1. I agree, that a proper errata that is anything more than an SC34
disposition response is better organized in section order, and in page and
paragraph order within a section when there are multiples or they apply to
more than one place.

2. This is clearly a response to SC34 and does not even provide an
indication of what these are about or what the original defect items are
(and I like the idea of retaining the links to the JIRA issues).  

  2.1 In some cases, it is not possible to know what the response is talking
about, because the response is not an erratum.  See the response to JP2-4,
JP2-18, JP2-23, JP2-25, JP-27, JP-29, JP-34 (which references to itself as
JP2-34 in what is evidently an infinite loop).  I don't know why some are
JP2- and some are JP-.  JP2- is used consistently in SC34 N1078.  

  2.2 Along with this, the JP-35 response refers to language (and section
titles) in IS 26300 that are not the language (or referenced IETF RFCs) in
the OASIS Standard for ODF 1.0.  This is no closer to resolving this one
than when the same defect was deferred in Errata 01.  
  I recommend that we continue to defer this item until we figure out what
we really want in the ODF 1.2 counterpart and then see how to reflect that
in any future errata.
  If on the other hand, if this is entirely a response to the defect report
on IS 26300, and is identified as such, I have no objection, of course.

3. I notice that some of the responses make multiple changes, sometimes in
more than one section of the specification.  It is difficult to know if
there are collisions with each other and with previous errata.  I think that
is another reason for using a form that is organized by section and in the
progression of content within a section.

4. It strikes me that one reason for being anal about how one produces
errata is to (1) protect ourselves from our own carelessness and (2) make it
easy for others -- including our fellow committee members -- to confirm that
and be confident in our care in the matter of errata.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 08:06
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] Comments on draft response

It might help to list the specific attributes of the first errata that you 
feel are missing and desired in the 2nd errata document.

For example, we're missing an OASIS cover sheet.  This is essential, IMHO, 
and something that needs to be addressed before we can move this toward a 
public review. 

We're also missing the line numbers, but I think that is an improvement.

Also, the layout and design of the document is different.  This may cause 
slight difficulties to a user of the specification who needs to consult 
both Errata 01 and Errata 02, and needs to switch between different 
layouts of what is essentially the same information.  On the other hand, I 
don't think we should be tied to the format of Errata 01 if we think the 
new style is more workable.  But I think we should pick a style and stick 
to it going forward.

-Rob

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 08/10/2009 
10:51:49 AM:

> 
> RE: [office] Comments on draft response
> 
> It is if we say it is. 
> 
> I am not talking about the letter of the law but an errata document that 
is
> consistent with other ones this would be used in conjunction with (since 
it
> does not replace errata 01), and that is available on the OASIS site.
> 
> I gather from the call that it is the will of the committee that the
> response (perhaps retitled appropriately) is considered enough and 
therefore
> all we will be doing for the next ODF 1.0 errata document.
> 
> I am not pleased about that.  I accept that is the unanimous consent 
around
> the question.
> 
>  - Dennis 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 07:07
> To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [office] Comments on draft response
> 
> OASIS defines "errata" as a "set of proposed corrections...in the form 
of 
> a list of changes, and optionally accompanied by a copy of the original 
> specification text marked to incorporate the proposed changes"
> 
> So how is this not an errata draft?
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
> To:
> "'Patrick Durusau'" <patrick@durusau.net>, "'ODF office'" 
> <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date:
> 08/10/2009 09:50 AM
> Subject:
> RE: [office] Comments on draft response
> 
> 
> 
> I am confused about what it is we are doing here.  I apologize for not
> taking my first look until this morning.
> 
> Elsewhere, we have been referring to the creation of an ODF 1.0 Errata 
02. 
> 
> 
> This document is not an Errata document.  It is a specific response to 
> SC34
> and N1078.
> 
> So I don't understand how this relates to having achieved the start of a
> public comment period, etc., etc. 
> 
> I had (foolishly?) expected that we were building a supplemental 
document 
> in
> the fashion of ODF 1.0 Errata 01.
> 
> I am willing to review this for what it is.  I don't regard it as a
> substitute for an errata document.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 04:59
> To: ODF office
> Subject: [office] Comments on draft response
> 
> Greetings!
> 
> Just quickly before I hop into a cab.
> 
> Andreas has suggested that the responses to JP2-18, JP2-23, JP2-25, 
> JP2-27, JP2-29 are insufficient.
> 
> In the alternative he has suggested that we simply say these 
> capabilities are application defined (for cases where we don't 
> sufficiently define something for it to be implemented). To be corrected 

> in 1.2 of course.
> 
> BTW, note the typo in JP2-34. The reference should be to JP2-35.
> 
> Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!
> 
> Patrick
> 
> -- 
> Patrick Durusau
> patrick@durusau.net
> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php