[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 and submitting it for public review.
Well, I would say it is our crafting of three things into a single motion that makes it seem a little weird. We will be designating authoritative versions of the documents that comprise CD05, once we approve the documents that constitute that Committee Draft. The way in which this whole conversation is strange is that we are actually choosing an OpenOffice.org 3.2 .odt document as the authoritative document and knowledge of that producer is relevant, just as if we'd chosen Word 2007 .odt versus Word 2010 .odt or whatever. I don't know which options were employed in the production, but it might even be the recommended extended-document Save option of OO.o 3.2. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 14:11 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [office] Motion for approving ODF 1.2 as Committee Draft and submitting it for pubic review. >> 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. > > Ah, ok, but same answer. Yes? That is we vote on the ones listed, from those will be produced the "approved" specification documents, of which, the ODF version will be the authoritative one. Yes? I know it sounds odd but it is the OASIS process that makes it all sound weird. [ ... ]