OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office] Choice of Authoritative ODF Format for Specifications

For what it's worth, know that Kim and I both use the latest version of OpenOffice to verify that the specification meets our templating and other requirements. It is likely that a number of the reviewers will also be using the latest version of OpenOffice or other apps based on the OO implementation and not using a native XML application to try to read the specification. If the TC would like to create an alternate .odt version and note that as 'related work' that's up to the TC.



Mary P McRae
Director, Standards Development
Technical Committee Administrator
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org 
web: www.oasis-open.org
twitter: @fiberartisan  #oasisopen
phone: 1.603.232.9090

Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.

On Jun 16, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> David,
> I don't think there is any problem with uploading ODF 1.1 documents and
> contributing text produced in ODF 1.1 format, regardless of the version that
> the specifications are identified as being saved as.
> In fact, I would be surprised if there is anything in the ODF 1.2
> specifications themselves that cannot be handled with ODF 1.0 documents,
> since the ODF 1.1 specification is such a document.  
> What appears to be the common tool for producing the specification drafts,
> OO.o 3.2.0, has the option of producing ODF 1.1 documents and it would
> probably be useful to rely on that rather than have any suggestion that an
> ODF 1.2 consumer is required for proper reading of the specifications.  (I
> am told there are some discrepancies with how numbering works, and I don't
> know if that is an implementation bug or there is a breaking change from 1.1
> to 1.2 that matters for the specification itself.)
> Someone who is aware of any substantive difficulty producing and consuming
> the current specifications as ODF 1.1 should say what the problem is, if
> any.
> - Dennis
> PS: I think the "ideological" objection is using a tool that has, since last
> year, claimed to be producing ODF 1.2 documents when the draft
> specifications have not even begun their first combined public review as I
> type this.  While I doubt that the specifications so-produced will be judged
> to fail to be ODF 1.2 documents at some future point, it is an irritant for
> some of us, perhaps for different multiple reasons (having at least 3 of
> them myself).
> PPS: FYI for the bystanders.  It is incorrect to claim that the editable
> form of the ODF 1.0 specification is in ODF 1.0.  It is identified as a
> Star/Open Office format that happens to be consumed successfully in later
> OO.o versions.  I note that a non-OO.o ODF 1.1 consumer I have does not open
> it successfully.  On inspection of its Zip packaging and the files therein,
> it is clear that it is not an ODF document of any flavor, even though it
> resembles ODF in many ways if you ignore little things such as the 100%
> difference in namespace bindings and mimetype value and the fact that there
> are external DTDs that the XML parts depend on.  
>   FURTHERMORE The editable form of the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard specification
> is explicitly identified as an ODF 1.0 document and I have no doubt that is
> what it is.  
> PPPS: I also notice that, as often happens when older documents are used as
> bases for editing newer ones, every part of ODF 1.2 draft 4 *except* Part 2
> (OpenFormula) still has the metadata title "OASIS Open Office
> Specification."  This leaks onto the Windows title bar for the PDF versions,
> the ones I suspect most people read.  Whether or not this is some sort of
> Freudian truth-in-labeling entertainment, we should probably clean this up.
> I shall submit an appropriate JIRA issue.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David LeBlanc [mailto:dleblanc@exchange.microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 08:19
> To: Andreas J. Guelzow; office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [office] Motion for approving ODF 1.2 as Committee Draft and
> submitting it for public review.
> Andrew said:
>> That does not mean that we should compound the issue by repeating the
> same for ODF 1.2. I fail to see why we could not use ODF1.0 or ODF1.1 to
> publish the ODF1.2 specs rather than the OpenOffice.org internal format
> (that some like to call ODF 1.2).
> I've been attempting to stay out of this, as it has nothing to do with
> encryption. I do have a question though - it would seem that a simple
> document with headings and sections would be using features of the
> specification available in 1.0. Unless the standard document itself needs
> features new to 1.2, then wouldn't the 1.2 version be really the same as the
> 1.1 version, excepting the version number? In other words, isn't this a moot
> point?
> I do have a small problem with needing to produce proposals for encryption
> related things in 1.2, as the software on my laptop will only do 1.1, and it
> would be a nuisance to install something else to produce a few paragraphs.
> I'm trying to understand whether this is truly a practical issue, or just an
> ideological issue.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]