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: FW: Verifying AMD1 against ODF 1.1 (with COR1+COR2)

Another part of my report on the 2012-05-23 WG6 call, with explanation of where WG6 can help in the review of the alignment with AMD1.

-----Original Message-----
From: sc34wg6-bounces@vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces@vse.cz] On Behalf Of Dennis E. Hamilton
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 15:47
To: 'SC34 WG6 Mailiing List '
Subject: Verifying AMD1 against ODF 1.1 (with COR1+COR2)


I offer this to help understanding of what the ODF 1.1 Mocked Errata 01 document is, in contrast to how AMD1 applies to IS 26300:2006:

The ODF 1.1 Mocked Errata 01 document with the indicated changes is meant to be technically identical to IS 26300 with COR1, COR2, and AMD1.  However those changes are against a version of ODF 1.0 that became IS 26300:21006.

The ODF 1.1 Mocked Errata 01 consists of changes to ODF 1.1 to achieve the same alignment.

For that reason, many changes introduced by AMD1 are not reflected in WD04, because ODF 1.1 already had the text to which an AMD1 change aligns.  When checking AMD1 instructions against the ODF 1.1 Mocked Errata, you will usually see no corresponding change marking in the Mocked Errata, but the text that is there is in alignment with the AMD1 instructions.

I believe the most important contribution that WG6 participants can make is to confirm that the AMD1 instructions are implemented in ODF 1.1 Mocked Errata 01.  There will be a few deviations, shown in the Appendix of the WD04 ODF 1.1 Errata 01 document, not in the Mocked Errata document.  There will also be a few more that take a little more work to figure out.  These are not reflected in the WD04 draft yet.  They are all in Section 17 of the specification and in the References.  There will also be a few items in the WD04 drafts that are repair defects in ODF 1.1 since AMD1 was produced.  These will all be identified in an Appendix also.

 - Dennis


 There is a way to make this work even better.  It just occurred to me.  There is no barrier to identifying, using a different form of markup, where in an ODF 1.1 Mocked Errata 01 there is text that already agrees with changes in AMD1.  This has nothing to do with the production of ODF 1.1 Errata 01, something the ODF TC must attend to.  It would make it easier for all of us to confirm that the technical convergence is occurring.

It would make it easier for observers to see that the corresponding part of ODF 1.1 has been checked as being in agreement.

If someone were to do this, even if severable people divided up AMD1 and did highlightings in the ODF 1.1 Mocked Errata 01 document, I am willing to add those into a future draft (WD05 or WD06) by copy and paste.

My recommendation is that highlighting be used over those passages that agree with the instructions in AMD1. Do not use font coloring, because there may be need to overlap a place where font coloring and underlines/strikethroughs have already been used.

There is a highlight color named "Yellow 1" that is quite light and a bit greenish on my monitor that seems to work well.

If anyone undertakes this, it would be good to know what parts of AMD1 have been verified in this manner so that others don't duplicate the same work.

I am willing to provide this myself, but I would not do so until *after* WD06 was available and the ODF TC could be continuing its part of the effort in parallel.  

[ ... ]

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