Re: [oic] Changes required to submitted document - The State of ODFInteroperability Version 1.0 Committee Draft 06

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Well, I think I've uploaded all possible permutation now:

- 3 versions with change tracking enabled in each

- 3 versions with all changes accepted along with a separate diff version

- a version with changes partially accepted (only on cover and footer)

 I hope we can find something acceptable, even if by mixing and matching.

Please let me know if it is otherwise.  In particular, it isn't clear 
whether the end goal ("a reviewer must be able to tell exactly what has 
been changed ...") must be doable for all three formats (editable source, 
PDF, and HTML), for any one of those formats, or in the authoritative 
format only.

Regards,

-Rob

Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> wrote on 10/07/2010 09:41:22 PM:

> 
> Re: [oic] Changes required to submitted document - The State of ODF 
> Interoperability Version 1.0 Committee Draft 06
> 
> Hi Kim,
> 
>   No that is not the case. This is a second review. There must be 
> something noting the changes since only the changes are subject to 
> review. Those choices include: diff-marked copy, a separate diff-
> marked copy, a separate change log, or a detailed change log in an 
> appendix. The most relevant data point is that a reviewer must be 
> able to tell exactly what has been changed so that they know what 
> bits are up for review.
> 
> Mary 
> 
> 

> 
> On Oct 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Kim Goolsby wrote:
> 
> The files still don't quite match. For the html, all changes were 
> approved, so we see no markup. However, the odt & pdf files still 
> show markup in the appendices. We need all three versions to be 
> identical. Would you mind accepting all changes in the odt file, 
> then re-generating it & and the pdf files?
> 
> Thanks much!

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:38 PM, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> wrote on 10/07/2010 04:08:24 PM:
> 
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> >   Please make the following changes:
> >
> > 1. Accept change tracking on cover pages/running footers. The result
> > is impossible to read. (see html screenshot below)
> >
> > [attachment "2010-10-07_15.57.49.png" deleted by Robert
> Weir/Cambridge/IBM]
> >
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> > 2. I have no idea where the use of gold came from for noting
> > insertions and deletions. It's not part of the style; please revert to
> black.
> >
> 
> I think this is an app setting, not part of the style.  The color of the
> change tracking varies by the user, so you can distinguish the changes
> from multiple users.  Why it picked gold for my color is a mystery.  In
> any case, I overrode the automatic color assignment in
> Tools\Options\Writer\Changes, to make it all black.
> 
> > 3. Since the change marks aren't properly displayed in the html
> > version, please approve all changes and then produce the html file.
> >
> 
> Done.
> 
> >
> > None of these changes should require a new TC vote; please send
> > updated files to Kim.
> >
> 
> Attached are the revised files.  Thanks again!
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> 
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 7, 2010, at 9:52 AM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Kim,
> > >
> > > What you will see with the ODT file will depend on your view mode in
> your
> > > app.
> > >
> > > If you are using OpenOffice.org you can go to Edit/Changes/Show and
> you
> > > should see change tracking.  That should reveal Appendix B as well. 
My
> 
> > > guess is the TOC inconsistency is just  a limitation in OO.  But it
> looks
> > > right to me if you enable show change tracking.  Of course, after 
the
> > > review, when we "accept" all changes, these issues go away as well.
> > >
> > > If you need the ODT file to show the changes by default, you can 
just
> > > re-save the document after enabling that setting.  Or if you want I
> can
> > > upload a new version with that enabled.  But before I do that, could
> you
> > > try it on your machine and let me know whether there are any other
> changes
> > > required, or whether that clears up the other inconsistencies you 
were
> 
> > > reporting?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > -Rob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Kim Goolsby <kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org> wrote on 10/07/2010 
08:19:15
> AM:
> > >>
> > >> Subject:
> > >>
> > >> Re: [oic] Changes required to submitted document - The State of ODF
> > >> Interoperability Version 1.0 Committee Draft 06
> > >>
> > >> Hi Rob,
> > >>
> > >> The odt file does not show the markup, just the html & pdf files 
do.
> > >> I've attached pictures of each file's title page to illustrate what 
I
> 
> > > mean.
> > >>
> > >> Also, the odt file shows two appendix A's. The html & pdf files 
show
> > >> Appendix A & B.
> > >>
> > >> The odt file is different from the html & pdf files in two aspects.
> > >> So, it appears that the odt file was not used to generate the pdf &
> > >> html files.
> > >>
> > >> I believe that all the files should look like the attached odt 
(once
> > >> the appendix numbering [lettering] is corrected). Mary will correct
> > >> me if I'm wrong but I haven't QC'd other specs at this stage that
> > >> show markup. Instead, a diff file was delivered with the spec.
> > >>
> > >> Please let me know of any other questions and comments.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Kim
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >> Kim,
> > >>
> > >> Can you give us some examples of what you mean by "shows markup
> rather
> > >> than the final view"?   Since this is a follow-up 15-day public
> review,
> > > I
> > >> believe that we are required to show the change tracking from the
> > > previous
> > >> public review.  That probably explains everything that you are
> seeing.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -Rob
> > >>
> > >> Kim Goolsby <kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org> wrote on 10/06/2010 
04:15:28
> 
> > > PM:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> [oic] Changes required to submitted document - The State of ODF
> > >>> Interoperability Version 1.0 Committee Draft 06
> > >>>
> > >>> TCADMIN-245
> > >>>
> > >>> Please make the following changes to this document:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. Please change the Revision History appendix to Appendix B.
> > >>> Appendix B shows in the Table of Contents but the actual header on
> > >>> page 17 of the odt file shows Appendix A.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. The html file's title page shows garbled information. Please
> > >>> regenerate this file, making sure that 'Hidden Paragraphs' &
> > >>> 'Nonprinting Characters' are turned off in the 'View' menu.
> > >>>
> > >>> 3. The pdf file also shows markup rather than the final view. 
Please
> > >>> regenerate this file, making sure that 'Hidden Paragraphs' &
> > >>> 'Nonprinting Characters' are turned off in the 'View' menu.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please let me know of any questions or comments.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you,
> > >>> Kim
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Kim Goolsby
> > >>> Publications Specialist
> > >>> OASIS Open: Advancing open standards for the information society
> > >>> email: kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org
> > >>> web: www.oasis-open.org
> > >>> phone: 1.734.223.6890
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Kim Goolsby
> > >> Publications Specialist
> > >> OASIS Open: Advancing open standards for the information society
> > >> email: kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org
> > >> web: www.oasis-open.org
> > >> phone: 1.734.223.6890[attachment "state of interop html.png" 
deleted
> > >> by Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM] [attachment "state of interop 
pdf.png"
> > >> deleted by Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM] [attachment "state of interop
> > >> odt.png" deleted by Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM]
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kim Goolsby
> Publications Specialist
> OASIS Open: Advancing open standards for the information society
> email: kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org 
> web: www.oasis-open.org
> phone: 1.734.223.6890