Re: [office] Motion for approving ODF 1.2 as Committee Draft and submittingit for pubic review.

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Andreas J. Guelzow" <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca> wrote on 06/11/2010 
10:15:07 PM:
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 12:59 -0600, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> > On 6/11/2010 2:56 PM, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> > >> 
> > > In that motion, when you say "(...) three versions of the 
specification
> > > documents(ODF, PDF and HTML)(...)", what does ODF refer to? An 
existing
> > > standard version?
> > >
> > > 
> > In that context, it means OpenDocument Format as in a file format. The 

> > other possible choices being PDF or HTML.
> 
> There are various (related) file formats referred to as ODF: ODF 1.0 and
> ODF 1.1 comes to mind, with ODF 1.2 in process. I am specifically asking
> which version.
> 
> And if the answer is ODF1.2 I obviously have some issues with that since
> there is only a moving target with that name.
> 

I believe I understand your point, but it really is not germane.  We do 
not need to identify the version of ODF used here.  We're only required to 
identify which version of the specification, of the ones uploaded, will 
comprise the authoritative version.  We could have just as well identified 
them by name, e.g., *.odt.  But as stated in the ballot, it is unambiguous 
which files are the ODF ones.  We agree that they are the ones with the 
odt file extension, right?

-Rob