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: Timeline for ODF 1.1 Errata 01

Hi Dennis,

I think there are two things we need to think about:

1) Changes we need to make to OASIS ODF 1.1, via Approved Errata, to make 
it incorporate any applicable Approved Errata we have already published 
for ODF 1.0.  This could be started any time and is not really dependent 
on the progress in JTC1, although of course it would be good to not lag 
that process too much.

2) Once we have done #1, are there any additional changes that we want to 
trigger in the ISO FPDAM text by submitting comments to that ballot.  (As 
a liaison we can't vote but we can submit comments).  Note that we don't 
need to have a 1.1 Approved Errata in hand before we can submit comments. 
It wouldn't hurt, of course.  But it is enough if we can submit a list of 
sections/line numbers in the FPDAM that we believe will need to be 
reconciled.  Then at some subsequent post-ballot WG6 meeting we can agree 
on the final list of changes.

There is another ballot, after the FPDAM, called the FDAM ballot.  I think 
it is 3-months long.  So there is an opportunity for us to ballot the 
OASIS Approved Errata at this point.

So I guess my point is that it is possible to do some parallel processing 
here with Errata.    For example, could the sequence go like this:

1) Determine the full text of the FPDAM (applying the changes described to 
the full text of ISO/IEC 26300).  We already have this, right?

2) Draft the OASIS ODF 1.1 Errata and produce a full ODF 1.1 text with the 
changes applied.  This could be done in either order.

3) Diff the draft of the corrected ODF 1.1 with the draft of the amended 
ISO/IEC 26300.  Are there any important discrepancies?  Anything that 
would break technical equivalence?  Fixes are cheap at this point, so I 
think we should take the opportunity to bring these documents as close 
together as possible.

4) For each discrepancy, evaluate how best to fix:

a) Fix in draft OASIS Errata
b) Fix in FPDAM

5) If any required a fix in the FPDAM text, submit a comment to that 
ballot before June 8th.

6) Public review (15-day) and ballot for OASIS Approved Errata.  I think 
this will end well before the FDAM ballot will.



"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 03/21/2011 
11:04:44 PM:
> Timeline for ODF 1.1 Errata 01
> Oh boy.  I've been coasting along thinking the end of the FPDAM1 
> ballot is months away and there's plenty of slack to have ODF 1.1 
> Errata 01 intercept that before the FDAM1 is produced.  Guess again, 
> I just did a setback roadmap.  It is ugly and I will go into 
> immediate crunch mode to not have it get worse.  Here's how it looks:
> 2011-06-08: ODF 1.1 Alignment FPDAM1 ballot ends at JTC1 SC34
> 2011-05-31: ODF 1.1 Alignment Comments from OASIS Liaison need to go
> to SC34 (this seems like the latest possible).
>   Note: This is for anything that we do in Errata 01 that requires 
> the SC34 WG6 amendment to be adjusted for.  There are believed to be
> a few items at this point.  This can be developed concurrently with 
> the procedural stages of the OASIS ODF 1.1 Errata 01, so there may 
> be some slack here.
> 2011-05-15 ODF 1.1 Errata 01 Approval 
>  This assumes that ODF 1.1 Errata 01 CSD01 goes through Public 
> Review without any comments requiring modifications and an 
> additional Public Review.  Most of the changes will be for alignment
> with ODF 1.0 Errata 02 and additional ones noticed in the 
> preparation of FPDAM1 should not create any problems.
> 2011-04-15 ODF 1.1 Errata 01 CSD01 Public Review Starts
> The setback includes some slack for procedural delays as well as the
> 15-day public review itself.
> 2011-04-04 ODF 1.1 Errata 01 WD0y Balloted in the ODF TC for 
> approval as CSD01 and submission to Pubic Review
> 2011-03-28 ODF 1.1 Errata 01 WD0x available for ODF TC review and 
> May have placeholder text in places to be completed by WD0y
> 2011-03-24 ODF 1.1 Errata 01 WD01 available for ODF TC review and 
> ODF 1.1 Errata 01 on agenda for 03-28 call.
> There are some specific items I must confirm as part of setting this
> up (especially the ability to derive an HTML version), but I will 
> attempt to improve on this date, no matter how sketchy the first draft 
>   Progress postings will be made as appropriate.
>   I guess it is a good thing that my wife is visiting friends in 
> Brazil until the beginning of April.
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] 
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 08:43
> To: Rob Weir "robert_weir"; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: Robin Cover
> Subject: WD-level starter document for
> Rob/Dennis,
> Attached is a nominal starter ("template") document for Open 
> Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version
> 1.1 Errata 01
> The Naming Directives are underspecified as to construction rules 
> for filename (pattern) and path/URIs, so the details can be
> negotiated.   I assigned something initially that seems to make
> sense but I need to think more deeply and examine the patterns for 
> Errata previously published.
> The anomaly is that -errata- is itself identified as a stage 
> (approval stage) in the TC Process, coordinate with
> [wd]
> csd
> csprd
> cs
> os
> errata <------- **
> And yet
> a) an Errata document progresses from
> wd -> csd -> csprd [Committee Specification Public Review Draft]
> b) a spec can have numerous Errata documents, so we need identifiers
> like 01, 02 to enumerate them
> I came up with this provisionally:
> OpenDocument-v1.1-errata-01-wd01.odt
> OpenDocument-v1.1-errata-01-wd02.odt
> OpenDocument-v1.1-errata-01-csd01.odt
> OpenDocument-v1.1-errata-01-csd01.odt [...]
> which builds on the document identifier for the 1.1 spec
> we could say "errata01" but IMO errata-01 looks better
> OpenDocument-v1.1
> [OpenDocument-v1.1.odt]
> Let me know if/when there's something further to be discussed.  Oh: 
> I bracketed "Conformance" because I didn't know if this is a diff or
> in-place correction, etc.
> - Robin
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#standApprovProcess
> --
> Robin Cover
> OASIS, Director of Information Services
> Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink
> Email: robin@oasis-open.org
> Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover
> Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/
> Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html
> Tel: +1 972-296-1783

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