Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Which is definitive odf?

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/6/19 Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>:

>> "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 06/19/2008 05:59:20 PM:

>> I don't think we want this in the scope statement.  If the scope of the TC
>> is to work with ODF 1.1, then we would need a new TC, or to recharter in
>> order to ever work with ODF 1.2.  That would be silly.
>
> No Rob. Read the process document. The statement
> above is inaccurate.
>
> This group writes the charter.


I just re-read that.
Sorry Rob I misinterpreted your phrasing.

Why would the TC need to recharter if they start out (and maybe even finish)
working on 1.1... then 1.2 comes along? I don't see that as constrained
by the process document?

Perhaps rather than argue over this, is it possible to include
the TC 'duration' in the scope? If so, then it could be something
like
"compliance and interop on 1.1"
then
"review new versions for testability/interop as they are developed"

I.e. to make it follow the main TC as it develops ODF.
Most (if not all) W3C WGs have an obligation to pass
their output through WAI pf group for accessibility checks.
The IIC TC could act in a similar manner for the main ODF TC?
As a sanity check on new material?



Mary, is this format viable as an input to a TC formation?



regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk