[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Motion for approving ODF 1.2 as Committee Draft andsubmitting it for pubic review.
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:31 -0600, Patrick Durusau wrote: > Moreover, doesn't the language: > > > ODF v1.2 consists of the following files and schemas: > > > answer the question? > > the "ODF v1.2" in question is the one specified by the files and schemas. > > What seems unclear about that? Similarly on Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:26 -0600, email@example.com wrote: > 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? Not to be nitpicky, but the motion reads: > Shall further from the three versions of the specification documents > (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee > draft the ODF versions be the authoritative ones? so this refers to versions of the specification that _will_ be produced after approval. So it does not refer to the files that are already available. > > Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! Thank you! I do. I hope you do too! Andreas