[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] ODF v1.2 submission for OS ballot
On 2011-01-02, at 15:43, "robert_weir@us.ibm.com" <robert_weir@us.ibm.com > wrote: > "Andreas J. Guelzow" <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca> wrote on > 01/02/2011 > 01:18:07 PM: > >> >> Some of the comments on the JIRA issues state >> "The comment is not in scope of the PRD02 public review." >> >> It is not quite clear to me what "in the scope of PRD02 public >> review" >> means. There are clearly some parts of the document that were not >> since >> the last review but whose meaning or interpretation has changed due >> to >> changes elsewhere. >> >> For example OFFICE-3583, the term in question there (escape angle) >> was >> replaced elsewhere with a different term (leaving angle), so while >> there >> was no change in this specific place the changes that were made >> elsewhere have made this (in my mind) clearly an item in scope for >> this >> review. >> > > The OASIS rule is: "Changes made to a committee draft after a > review must > be clearly identified in any subsequent review, and the subsequent > review > shall be limited in scope to changes made in the previous review." > > So the scope is limited to "changes made in the previous review". > > However, I'd tend to read that broadly, to include explicit text > changes > as well as those unchanged parts of the text whose interpretation has > changed based on the explicit text changes. I would agree with that reading, and so claim that OFFICE-3583 is in fact in scope. Andreas
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]