RE: [office] Comments on draft response

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

Michael, I have no objection to informatively providing information about
how a change is done in IS 26300 along with the change to the ODF 1.0
Standard.  Errata 01 does that, for example, and I have no objection to
anything about Errata 01.

I do have a problem about doing that when the item doesn't apply to the ODF
1.0 Standard, such as the defects against section 17.5 that only apply to IS
26300.  In this case there is no erratum for the ODF 1.0 Standard because it
doesn't have the defect, so I don't see how there is anything to tie it to
that is in scope for an OASIS errata document.  (In that particular case,
maybe a response specifically to SC34 suggesting what the ODF TC sees as an
appropriate IS 26300 erratum would be sufficient.)

As I recall, one reason we deferred the IRI business from Errata 01 was
because we couldn't find a single fix that worked correctly for both ODF 1.0
and IS 26300.  I don't believe that circumstance has changed.

If you have a specific example of what you want to have be all right for
this case in an OASIS ODF 1.0 Errata 02 document, maybe that would clear it
up for both of us.  

 - Dennis


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200908/msg00149.html
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 07:21
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: robert_weir@us.ibm.com; office@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Patrick Durusau'
Subject: Re: [office] Comments on draft response

Dennis,

On 08/12/09 15:29, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200908/msg00148.html
> Michael,
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this question:
> 
> "But if we [state the errata against the ODF 1.0 OASIS standard], where is
> the difference between informally listing page and line numbers, which may
> refer to a text that differs between ODF 1.0 and ISO 26300, and listing
the
> differing text itself?"
> 
> I think there is probably no difference, but I want to make sure I
> understand the case you have in mind.  Can you provide an example where
this
> is the case?

My (maybe wrong) understanding is that you have concerns with 
(informative) adding text from ISO 26300 to the errata, in addition to 
the text from ODF 1.0.

What I wanted to say is that I don't see a difference between that, and 
adding line numbers from ISO 26300, as we did in the first errata.

So, my suggestion is that we normatively add the original text from the 
ODF 1.0 standard, and add the text from ISO 26300 informatively where it 
differs.

Does that work for you? If not, what are your concerns?

Michael
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200908/msg00147.html
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 00:10
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: robert_weir@us.ibm.com; office@lists.oasis-open.org; Patrick Durusau
> Subject: Re: [office] Comments on draft response
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> On 08/11/09 18:47, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> When we developed what is now Errata 01, I recall being told that we can
>> only issue OASIS-published errata for approved OASIS Standards.  That is
> why
>> Errata 01 consists of Errata for the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard, and neither
> IS
>> 26300 nor ODF 1.0 2nd edition, which are not OASIS Standards.  (It is my
>> understanding that the mapping to IS 25300/ODF 1.0 2e, and the mapping to
>> defect-report items, was done as a courtesy but it is not the material
>> content of the errata document, despite how much that is all that matters
> to
>> SC34.)  If my understanding of this is correct, I would like to know what
>> has changed since October 2008.
> 
> Nothing has changed since when. But I'd like to clarify that the errata 
> of cause must not normatively list text from ODF 1.0 2nd edition, but 
> from the ODF 1.0 OASIS standard. That needs to be changed in the current 
> draft before we can approve it as an errata.
> 
> But if we do so, where is the difference between informally listing page 
> and line numbers, which may refer to a text that differs between ODF 1.0 
> and ISO 26300, and listing the differing text itself?
> 
> [ ... ]