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] Comments on draft response


On 10.08.09 21:30, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Here are some problems that I notice with this approach.
>   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

Regarding the different language: The wording of the two paragraphs in
17.5 we are talking about differs between the OASIS ODF 1.0 standard,
and the OASIS ODF 1.0 2nd edition, which is the same as ISO 26300. The
current draft lists the wording of the 2nd edition/ISO 26300. If that is
the concern, we can

a) omit the original language, and just refer to "the first paragraph
behind the list in section 17.5", etc.
b) include the text from the OASIS standard, with a note how this reads
in the 2nd edition.

Both suggestion should resolve that issue.

Regarding the different RFCs: The OASIS standard contains a reference to
5 of RFC2396. The 2nd edition/ISO 26300 contains a reference to
RFC3987, which turned out to be problematic. We are now resolving that
by a dual reference to RFC3986 (which is the successor of RFC2396) and
RFC3987. Why do you think this is an issue, in particular, since we are
not referencing RFC3986 in general, but a specific definition in a section?

> 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 disagree on that. I think the issues are technically resolved, and the
editorial issue how to handle the situation that the text between ODF
1.0 and ODF 1.0 2nd edition differs should be resolvable as well.

>   I recommend that we continue to defer this item until we figure out what

I disagree on that as well. We have deferred this in the first errata
although we had a proposal how to resolve this. I don't want to defer
this one more time.

> we really want in the ODF 1.2 counterpart and then see how to reflect that
> in any future errata.

The current draft for ODF 1.2 already contains a rewrite of this
section. However, that goes in my opinion beyond what I would like to
change in an errata document.

Best regards


Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

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