RE: [office] Re: Working Draft for ODF 1.1 (Second Edition)?

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Using correct sender to satisfy the list.  (I have an e-mail configuration problem which I attribute to something in Outlook 2010 that I consider bit rot and, from my perspective, changes something that was not broken and now is.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:himself@orcmid.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 09:58
To: 'robert_weir@us.ibm.com'
Cc: 'Michael Brauer '; 'ODF TC List '; 'Patrick Durusau '; 'Robin Cover'
Subject: RE: [office] Re: Working Draft for ODF 1.1 (Second Edition)?

Rob, yes the preparation of a companion markup to the ODF 1.1 Errata 01 is intended.

The only reason for creating an ODF 1.1 (Second Edition) Committee Specification would be to have a stable document that could be used for reference and also for use by SC34/ITTF if it is desired to transpose to a fully-integrated edition of IS 26300/COR1/COR2/AMD1.  (The W3C tends to do this with their multiple editions that don't change the version number.)

Also, I am not sure what we could call the accompanying "copy of the original OASIS Standard text marked to incorporate the proposed changes" once the "proposed changes" are approved as ODF 1.1 Errata 01, and how it would be made available.

I need to call my Working Drafts of the marked standard something, so I will use "ODF 1.1 (Errata Markup) WDxx" until this is settled.  The file names will be something like "OpenDocument-v1.1-markup-wdNN.odt".

There is no hurry on this part, I just need a way to provide an auditable trail of the markup drafts.

PS: I just found another glitch in the implementation of change-tracking in the OO.o/LOffice 3.3.x code base that makes certain change tracking untrustworthy (i.e., the change tracking is corrupted after the fact).  This involves a deletion edge case.  I think I can avoid it in my application of the proposed Errata 01 changes to an ODF 1.1 base document.

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 07:40
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: 'Michael Brauer '; 'ODF TC List '; 'Patrick Durusau '; 'Robin Cover'
Subject: [office] Re: Working Draft for ODF 1.1 (Second Edition)?

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 03/27/2011
07:24:37 PM:

[ ... ]
> It strikes me that the final change-marked version, once there is 
> clean alignment between ODF 1.1 + its errata and the amended IS 26300, 
> will be a suitable basis for an ODF 1.1 (Second Edition) Committee 
> Specification 01.
> 

Hi Dennis,  Do you think it will be necessary to have an ODF 1.1 (second
edition) CS?  In particular, do you see a need for any changes to ODF 1.1 that go beyond the non-substantive changes that may be made via Approved Errata?

Note that 3.5 of the OASIS TC Process says:

"A TC may approve a set of Errata to an OASIS Standard which it developed as "Approved Errata" by: 
(a) Adopting the set of proposed corrections as a Committee Specification Draft, in the form of a list of changes, and optionally accompanied by a copy of the original OASIS Standard text marked to incorporate the proposed changes."
So this suggests that we may not need to have an ODF 1.1 CS, but it would be sufficient to have an ODF 1.1 Approved Errata CSD, accompanied by a marked up version of ODF 1.1 that includes the corrections.
Does that make sense?

[ ,,, ]