[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Wrong link in the spec
To add to Rob’s elaboration about ISO/IEC JTC1 Errata, the IS 26300, it’s two Corrigenda, and its Amendment for alignment with ODF 1.1 are all freely available to the public on the list of ISO/IEC JTC1 Publicly Available Standards. See <http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html>. These are in numerical order. Scroll down to ISO/IEC 26300:2006. There you will See ODF 1.0 in PDF and XHTML format. There are also ISO/IEC 26300:2006/Cor.1:2010 Corresponding to OASIS ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 01 (PDF) ISO/IEC 26300:2006/Cor.2:2011 Corresponding to OASIS ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 02 (PDF) ISO/IEC 26300:2006/Amd.1:2012 Aligning IS 26300 (with Corrigenda applied) with the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard (PDF) These are not cumulative. Each presumes the predecessors have been applied. OASIS ODF 1.1 Errata 01 is approved and awaiting completion of production of the published form by OASIS staff. As soon as OASIS ODF 1.1 Approved Errata 01 appears, a defect report will be submitted to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 for preparation of a corresponding ISO/IEC 26300:2006/Cor.3:2014. This submission will probably be fully under ballot by the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 plenary in September. The details are already fully worked out. I should point out that, despite expressed concerns for ODF maintenance at the International level, this is not reflected in the active participation of National (or EC) Bodies at JTC1/SC34 WG6, the working group for ODF maintenance at ISO. The sustaining participation is from Japan, OASIS, and the UK. The serious work to prepare these corrigenda, especially the major alignment with ODF 1.1 and the prospective Cor.3 reflects the direct labor of WG6 convener Francis Cave (UK), Patrick Durusau (project editor), and myself. The Japanese participation has also been substantial in terms of the creation of defect reports on the ISO/IEC version, including creating of a full transposition of IS 26300, with the accumulated changes, into a Japanese language version of IS 26300. - Dennis From: office@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 04:53 AM To: Charles-H. Schulz Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office] Wrong link in the spec <office@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 08/05/2013 04:57:18 AM: [ ... ] > The way I understand this, the errata was already pushed and so > whatever dead link we are talking about here has been corrected. The > changes have already permeated outside of the OASIS, which is a good > thing. Now does the ISO have a specific process -I imagine it does- > that would take some time in order to accept and integrate an errata? > Approval of corrigenda is a relatively fast process, a vote of NBs at the SC level. So generally a 3-6 month process from start to publication. But remember, this particular error has already been fixed, both in OASIS and in ISO. The ISO version of the correction was published back in 2010. So it is already there, freely available, for any implementor who wants it: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=55752 (Click on the corrigenda tab) But I'm not sure, at a practical level, this really solves the problem. This isn't really about a broken redirect on the ISI website. I'd be more concerned about the process about how this error was reported and how the decision was made. If the process is not reviewed then you could find yourself back in the same situation over an upside-down hyphen a month from now. EIF 2.0 calls for public administrations to be involved in the standardization process: "Even where existing formalised specifications are available, they evolve over time and experience shows that revisions often take a long time to be completed. Active government participation in the standardisation process mitigates concerns about delays, improves alignment of the formalised specifications with public sector needs and can help governments keep pace with technology innovation." See section 5.3: http://ec.europa.eu/isa/documents/isa_annex_ii_eif_en.pdf As a minimum I think "active government participation" should include reporting any errors in the specification that they believe are fatal to the intended use of the standard. That then gives the standardizers the opportunity to point the public administrations to the availability of published errata/corrigenda that may have been overlooked. Regards, -Rob > Thanks, > > Charles. > > Le Sun, 4 Aug 2013 13:05:38 -0400, > robert_weir@us.ibm.com a écrit : > > > Another approach is to report this to ISI (or IANA), that they are > > redirecting > > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types > > to http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types when it > > should redirect to http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types. > > > > The URL we quote was correct originally. You see it used in other > > places, in books: > > > > http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/webprog/webnut/ch17_05.htm > > > > in IETF drafts: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kunze-rfc2413bis-02 > > > > and in published W3C Notes: > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/odrl/ > > > > So it would help more than just us if the redirect was fixed. > > > > In general link decay on the web happens. This will not change. The > > best we can do is link to the most authoritative page at the time, > > and update the link when it changes. Adopters of standards have a > > few other options, including downloading copies of any referenced > > pages and maintaining them in a local repository, as insurance > > against link Armageddon. Or they could contact OASIS (or ISO/IEC > > JTC1) if they had concerns. Or they could consult a domain expert on > > the subject who would quickly let them know that the IANA registry of > > content types is well-known in the industry, non-controversial and > > has nothing to do with the openness of a standard. > > > > Regards, > > > > -Rob > > > > <office@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 08/03/2013 07:36:32 AM: > > > > > From: "Charles-H. Schulz" <charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com> > > > To: "'ODF TC List '" <office@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > Date: 08/03/2013 07:33 AM > > > Subject: [office] Wrong link in the spec > > > Sent by: <office@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > It has been brought to the attention of the Document Foundation as > > > well as other European entities that the European Commission has > > > labeled the ODF standard "not open" and problematic in one of its > > > official publications. > > > > > > Inquiries on this matter has led us to receive the following answer > > > from the European Commission: That there's a dead link in the > > > specification at the section 17.7.3 : > > > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types > > > > > > My question is twofold: what correction could be made to this > > > deadlink (apart from its obvious removal) and how long would the > > > publication of an erratum take? > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Charles-H. Schulz > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > Charles-H. Schulz > Associé / Partner, > Ars Aperta. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]