[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: UOML Part 1 v.1 cs1 Section Numbering and Copyright Notice Defects
[This may be a duplicate. The list server may not have received the first posting of this comment.] This comment applies to uoml-part1-v1.0-cs01.odt the versions of Committee Specification 1 linked from the Call for Vote: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uoml-x/200809/msg00002.html (These documents are not available in any other public location that I am aware of.) I. DEFECTS: A. Section 3 Numbering Section 3 is correctly identified and numbered in the table of contents (page 5). The section is identified as starting on page 34. The target page linked from the table of contents has heading "1. UOML Instructions", the subsections at level 1.n are all numbered as part of section 1 (not 3). Sub-subsections, where they appear are numbered in 3.m.n style. This defect does not appear in uoml-part1-v1.0-cs01.odt B. Section 4 Numbering Section 4 is correctly identified and numbered in the table of contents (bottom of page 5). The target page has heading "2. Conformance" (page 43). This defect does not appear in uoml-part1-v1.0-cs01.odt C. Copyright Notices Starting with section 1. Introduction (page 7), the Copyright Notice at the bottom of each page to changes from 1993-2008 to 1993-2007, continuing to the end of the document. [Meta-question: Is 1993 correct?] This defect does appear in uoml-part1-v1.0-cs01.odt II. RECOMMENDATIONS A. In the future, designate the PDF document as authoritative, after verifying it as accurate. B. I recommend that stable, released versions of ODF-supporting processors be used to produce the ODF version. If the processor supports versions that go beyond the current standard, I recommend that they be saved in an ODF 1.0 compatible form if possible. I do not know if the defect appears because of the use of an earlier (but ODF 1.1 supporting and the last stable release) version of OpenOffice.org than was used to create the posted version of the file. I did confirm that there was no problem like this with an earlier ODF 1.1 version of the committee draft which was prepared in ODF 1.1 format using OpenOffice.org 2.4. - Dennis Dennis E. Hamilton ------------------ NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]