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] Proposal: Align IS 26300 to ODF 1.1 instead of 1.0 maintenance

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 01/04/2010 
11:47:17 AM:

> 1.2 It is important to have a stable baseline IS 26300 against which
> an ODF 1.1 Addendum can be submitted.

The goal should be (IMHO) that the OASIS and ISO versions remain 
"technically equivalent".  Since we do not make substantive changes in 
OASIS Approved Errata, there is less room for trouble here, in practice. 
Even if an amended ODF 1.0 was created in ISO and lacked one or more 
approved corrigenda corresponding to OASIS Approved Errata, it should 
still be "technically equivalent" to OASIS ODF 1.1, right?  I don't think 
we get a good return on investment by pushing for more than "technically 
equivalent".  In particular, there may be little incremental value in 
striving for lexical equivalence of the texts.

> 1.3 The continuing processing of corrigenda against the unaligned IS
> 26300 will add substantial delays to the achievement of a stable IS 
> 26300 baseline against which an ODF 1.1 Addendum is to be applied.

Not necessarily.  The work required to submit ODF 1.1 is more around OASIS 
requirements related to submitting OASIS standards to other organizations: 
 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php#submitwork  This 
looks like it would require several months.  Producing Approved Errata, on 
the other hand, simply requires a 15-day public review and a TC vote. 

> 2.1 The ODF TC ceases creation of further addenda against ODF 1.0 
> and the IS 26300 counterpart, ODF 1.0 second edition.  Further 
> processing of an ODF 1.0 Errata 02 will be suspended.

I don't think we could do this, since the ODF TC and OASIS have committed 
to SC34 to process defect reports in a timely fashion.  And remember, any 
JTC1 NB may submit a defect report at any time.  Even if WG6 agreed in 
principle to hold off, that guarantees nothing, since it a prerogative of 
any NB to submit a defect report.

How about this:  Draw up a plan for what it would look like if we kept to 
our defect report processing commitments as well as produced an amendment. 
 Consider as well as the OASIS requirements for Interop Demonstrations, 
etc., per the Liaison policy.  Map out what that schedule would look like. 
 Compare it to the likely ODF 1.2 schedule, in OASIS and ISO.  See if any 
of this makes sense.  If it doesn't, we can try to adjust, but I don't 
think we want to automatically assume that we must renege on our defect 
processing commitments.


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