Svante What appears to have happened is that between WD13-04 (issued on 2019-04-01) and WD15 (issued on 2019-05-03), the text of 5.5.1 in Part 3 Schema reverted from the text agreed by the TC on 10 September 2018 to the text proposed earlier/originally as the resolution of OFFICE-3873. Quite how this has happened is a mystery, but it means that the text of 5.5.1 in all public reviews of ODF 1.3 since May 2019 has not been the text that was agreed by the TC on 10 September 2018. I was not on the TC in September 2018, so I cannot comment on why the change of wording was agreed at that time, but Patrick and other TC members may well remember. I suspect that the TC took the view that in the original wording the second sentence more or less repeats what is said in the first sentence, so is redundant. In my opinion the shorter wording conveys the same meaning as the original, so this editorial error can be corrected without making a material change. Francis From: office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau
Sent: 09 October 2020 14:47
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] Re: Next steps questions for ODF 1.3 Svante, The language for 5.5.1 remains incorrect. Sorry. Patrick On 10/9/20 8:52 AM, Svante Schubert wrote: Dear TC members, Dear Paul, I believe I have added all the required changes and created a GitHub Pull-Request, which yet have to be reviewed: As Paul requested, I have not changed the file names but created a new CS02 directory for our deliverables. To be able to view the HTML at the GitHub side, I was using my own GitHub fork, you might view already the HTML directly beyond: The PDFs are updated as well and can be downloaded via the deliverables directory: If there is anything missing, please let me know. Hi Patrick, I don't see any blocking issues here - sounds pretty good. More details in-line below... Paul,
1) The TC has discovered that in the most recent public review, section
5.5.1 General of part 3 read:
"The under-specification of change tracking in ODF 1.2 resulted in a
number of different choices being possible as to how to implement the
feature. While each of these choices would be consistent with the way
that the feature is specified, unless identical choices are made, it is
likely that the resulting implementations would not be fully
interoperable. For this reason, where interoperability of change
tracking between implementations is required, implementers are
recommended to carry out specific checks that their implementation
choices are the same or similar enough to be interoperable."
That language was changed in our drafts and should have read:
""The under-specification of change tracking in ODF 1.2 resulted in
varying implementations of this feature. Where interoperability between
implementations is required, this feature should be checked for
interoperability."
See: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-3873
The TC sees this as an editorial error to be noted to the TC Admin.
Will that be a problem?
PK> The overriding issue here is the simple question: Is this a "material" change? The TC Process [1] positions this as something that the TC must decide, based on the definition: "Material Change" is any change to the content of a Work Product that would require a compliant application or implementation to be modified or rewritten in order to remain compliant or which adds new features or otherwise expands the scope of the work product.
Then you just follow the TC Process for a Committee specification [2]: If Non-Material Changes have been made to the draft since its last public review then the TC must provide an acceptable summary that is clear and comprehensible of the changes made since the last public review and a statement that the changes are all Non-Material to the TC Administrator.
You are fairly familiar with this, I think, especially since you mention the "proper forms about comments and changes"....
2) The TC received one comment,
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-4094, that does identify an
error in the spec, but it is one that has existed since 1.2 and so far
as we can tell, no implementer has followed our advice. Quite possibly
because what we say makes no sense for time calculations.
We intend to respond by acknowledging the error and setting it to ODF 1.4.
Will that suffice?
PK> Sure, just include the details into the comment resolution log file. It should be clear enough so that if the commenter asks about it, you can simply say - "please look in the comment resolution log." That is, include a link to the issue and the email (unless that's in the issue), and the TC's decision. If it's in the TC meeting minutes,, you can point to that, or to related emails, if you want.
3) Svante wants to know what changes need to be made to prepare the
texts for the TC vote to make 03 the Committee Specification (contingent
on our supplying the proper forms about comments and changes.)
PK> Well, this involves very few changes beyond changing all of the "csd03" URIs to point to "cs02" instead. (of course, both the visible URI text and its hyperlink must change. - Also change the "Previous stage" URIs to point to csd03 (i.e., just copy "This stage" of the csd03 docs to "Previous stage" of the cs02 documents) - Be sure to update the "Citation format" and "Additional artifacts" links. - no need to change "Latest stage" links anywhere. PK> One item of particular note is: - DON'T change the file names inside the /schemas directory to include any "stage" name component. I corrected these file names in publishing csd03. (Apologies to Svante for maybe not communicating clearly about this earlier - I think it got lost due to answering a second question shortly afterward... (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/202008/msg00041.html)). - If you want to update the commented header material in the /schemas files, you can do that. I'll also check during publication. I think that covers most of it...
Thanks!
Hope you are having a great week!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
-- OASIS - Advancing open standards for the information society
-- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau |