[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 pubic review.
Hi all I am struggling to understand why so much energy is being spent on this issue. The point of the effort is to produce an approved ODF 1.2 standard. That is a matter of time but is the inevitable outcome. At that point the authoritative version of that standard will indeed be formatted using an approved standard (ie itself). Is the argument that all the committee drafts produced along the way should not use the pre-approved format, but then we convert to ODF 1.2 for the final publication? That seems silly and perhaps prone to error. I fully support the current proposal to designate the odf 1.2 version as the authoritative working document. To me it is a simple expression of confidence in the end result. Regards Bob On 16 June 2010 00:38, Thorsten Behrens <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > email@example.com wrote: >> In the end our choices are limited to: >> >> 1) Choose the ODF document as the authoritative document. This has the >> advantage, when viewed in the same editor, of being closest to what the >> editors actually wrote and saw. It has the disadvantage of not being an >> approved standard. >> > Hi Rob, all, > > there are several subitems of 1) available, the most obvious one > being to switch OOo to 1.0/1.1 compat mode & perform a SaveAs. > > That would make the authoritative odf content adhere to a published > standard. I ran a graphical comparison script on the output & found > exactly four minor differences, all due to numbering changes, but > those surely can be fixed manually. > >> So I don't see any perfect choice here. Any OASIS TC needs to make a >> decision on this consideration, and whether you pick the editable source >> or a derived/generated version, there are opportunities for surprises. >> > Sure. But there are wise & not so wise choices, and I believe > publishing a standard in precisely the language it should define is > among the latter. ;) > > Regards, > > -- Thorsten >