[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: Comparisons of ISO 26300 to ODF 1.1 at WG6
This exchange is from the list provided for informal use by SC34 WG6 in its work on ODF Maintenance. -----Original Message----- From: sc34wg6-bounces@vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces@vse.cz] On Behalf Of Dennis E. Hamilton Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 22:34 To: sc34wg6@vse.cz Cc: 'Patrick Durusau' Subject: RE: Comparisons of ISO 26300 to ODF 1.1 Hello, It is promising to see how close Patrick has been able to come in mechanically producing a change-marked document that shows the differences between IS 26300:2006 and the ODF 1.1 OASIS Standard. I've been examining the change-marked PDFs a little bit and have the following advice for review of the material. - Dennis E. Hamilton Member, OASIS ODF TC Member, OASIS Liaison to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 WG6 1. FINDING AVAILABLE COPIES The two documents are publicly available on the OASIS Site already. You can access them for informal use until the submission to SC34 is posted (if you have access there): 1.1 OpenDocument-v1.0ed2-cs1_compare_1.1.pdf The summary and download page for this document is at <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=35853>. This is essentially IS 26300 (in terms of the OASIS 1.0 Second Edition Committee Spec. 1 counterpart text). But it is IS 26300 as if it was made by applying changes to the OASIS 1.1 Standard. 1.2 OpenDocument-v1.1_compare_1.0_2ndEd.pdf The summary and download page for this document is at <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=35854> This is essentially the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard. But it is OASIS ODF 1.1 as if it was made by applying changes to IS 26300 (using the OASIS 1.0 Second Edition Committee Specification 01 corresponding text). 2. APPRAISAL 2.1 I personally recommend the second document, OpenDocument-v1.1_compare_1.0_2ndEd.pdf, since it shows more clearly what is different in 1.1 from the current IS 26300. This is the document that I give my attention to in the remainder of this message. 2.2 The revision-markup comparison PDF has some inaccuracies at this point. They seem to all be inconsequential with respect to technical content. As Patrick points out, this a start in helping us get to an appropriate amendment document, one that is technically equivalent to the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard. 3. CAVEATS 3.1 The discrepancies I notice are of three kinds: (a) Differences in the formal matter (covers, front matter, etc.) that necessarily occur between the IS and the OASIS Standard (b) Changes that are not reflected in revision marking (e.g., removals, changes, and additions in headings and the table of content that are not noted) (c) Deletions of subsections where the subsequent subsections at the same level have not been renumbered in the text 3.2 It is recommended that the revision-marked document be examined at 100% or greater to ensure that underlining is always apparent. 4. EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENCES IN FORMAL MATTER 4.1 ISO/IEC 26300:2006 has front-matter pages i-iv that are not reflected in the change document. 4.2 The bottom margin copyright notice and filename are different between 26300:2006 and what appears in ODF 1.1, although the differences are not noted in the comparison. An amendment would do this differently if a replacement text were produced. 4.3 Pages 1-3 preceding the table of contents in ODF 1.1, are quite different from the single page preceding the table of contents in IS 26300. Many of these differences do not apply for an amendment. 4.4 There is an Appendix I that applies only to OASIS and is not applicable to IS 26300 or its amendment. 5. EXAMPLES OF CHANGES NOT REFLECTED IN REVISION MARKING These all appear to be inconsequential, although one needs to find and examine them to be sure of that. 5.1 The OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard has nine Appendices, A-I. New Appendices E and F are inserted for Accessibility Guidelines and guidelines on presentation Bidirectional (BiDi) scripts and related information, respectively. The IS 26300 Appendices E and F are renamed G and H. There is a new section G.4 on changes from ODF 1.0 second edition (consequently, IS 26300:2006 as well). These are change marked properly in the body of the comparison PDF, just not noted in the table of contents. The table of contents is not reliable for knowing what's new and what's gone at the level the table goes to. 5.2 The comparison document page 1 title is shown as "Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.1 and then (Second Edition) is stricken. The change from v1.0 to v1.1 is NOT noted as a change. 5.3 In the 1.4 Relax-NG Schema section (comparison PDF page 34), the change of version in line 3 is also not noted, nor is any of the change in line 4 (although there is a change bar). 5.4 In the schema fragment for Text Document Model (comparison PDF page 42), a new line 179 (introducing text-soft-page-break) is shown as an insertion, but it is not indicated that subsequent line numbers are changed. This is minor so long as the material changes in the schema are shown, as they are in the introduction of more schema at the added Use Soft Page Breaks subsection (comparison document pages 43-44). 5.5 Sometime there are change marks with no apparent significance, as for the heading "4.6.4 Deletion" (comparison PDF page 83). 5.7 The entire section "4.7 Soft Page Breaks" is new (comparison PDF page 83) and this is not noticed in the table of contents with any kind of change bar. 5.8 There is a mystery around what should be the deletion of a period and the addition of additional text just before the subsection on "Space Character" (comparison PDF page 86). 6. EXAMPLES OF DELETION HOLES? 6.1 Section 9.3.9 Alternative Text (comparison PDF page 314) appears to be deleted completely. The schema line 7100 there is essentially the same text for the deleted line 7095. The subsequent sections are not renumbered but the table of contents is. The Table of Contents has 9.3.9 Hyperlinks (9.3.10 Hyperlinks in the text). 9.3.9 Hyperlinks in the Table of Contents also goes to the wrong place entirely if followed as a link. (The ODF 1.1 specification does not have that problem and the section on Alternative Text is simply gone.) -----Original Message----- From: sc34wg6-bounces@vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces@vse.cz] On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 16:15 To: sc34wg6@vse.cz Subject: Comparisons of ISO 26300 to ODF 1.1 Greetings! I have posted to Toshiko auto-generated comparisons of the text that became ISO 26300 with the text of ODF 1.1. The first comparison starts with the ISO 26300 text and compares the ODF 1.1 text. The second comparison starts with the ODF 1.1 text and compares the text that became ISO 26300. These are informative postings that will hopefully help inform the form of an amendment to ISO 26300 to make it concurrent with ODF 1.1 (and thereafter to remain in synch). Do note that the errata that have already been applied to the text of ODF 1.0 and that compose a pending DCOR on ISO 26300 are not reflected in these comparisons. The thinking being that when an amended text is offered, in its liaison role that the ODF TC/OASIS could offer those corrections as comments to the amendment text and so the final result would be the fully concurrent text that is the goal. Hope everyone is looking forward to a great weekend! 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) _______________________________________________ sc34wg6 mailing list sc34wg6@vse.cz http://mailman.vse.cz/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg6 _______________________________________________ sc34wg6 mailing list sc34wg6@vse.cz http://mailman.vse.cz/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg6
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]