[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Comments on draft response
Dennis, On 08/12/09 15:29, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Michael, > > I'm not sure I understand this question: > > "But if we [state the errata against the ODF 1.0 OASIS standard], where is > the difference between informally listing page and line numbers, which may > refer to a text that differs between ODF 1.0 and ISO 26300, and listing the > differing text itself?" > > I think there is probably no difference, but I want to make sure I > understand the case you have in mind. Can you provide an example where this > is the case? My (maybe wrong) understanding is that you have concerns with (informative) adding text from ISO 26300 to the errata, in addition to the text from ODF 1.0. What I wanted to say is that I don't see a difference between that, and adding line numbers from ISO 26300, as we did in the first errata. So, my suggestion is that we normatively add the original text from the ODF 1.0 standard, and add the text from ISO 26300 informatively where it differs. Does that work for you? If not, what are your concerns? Michael > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200908/msg00147.html > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 00:10 > To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org > Cc: robert_weir@us.ibm.com; office@lists.oasis-open.org; Patrick Durusau > Subject: Re: [office] Comments on draft response > > Hi Dennis, > > On 08/11/09 18:47, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> Michael, >> >> When we developed what is now Errata 01, I recall being told that we can >> only issue OASIS-published errata for approved OASIS Standards. That is > why >> Errata 01 consists of Errata for the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard, and neither > IS >> 26300 nor ODF 1.0 2nd edition, which are not OASIS Standards. (It is my >> understanding that the mapping to IS 25300/ODF 1.0 2e, and the mapping to >> defect-report items, was done as a courtesy but it is not the material >> content of the errata document, despite how much that is all that matters > to >> SC34.) If my understanding of this is correct, I would like to know what >> has changed since October 2008. > > Nothing has changed since when. But I'd like to clarify that the errata > of cause must not normatively list text from ODF 1.0 2nd edition, but > from the ODF 1.0 OASIS standard. That needs to be changed in the current > draft before we can approve it as an errata. > > But if we do so, where is the difference between informally listing page > and line numbers, which may refer to a text that differs between ODF 1.0 > and ISO 26300, and listing the differing text itself? > > [ ... ] > -- Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering StarOffice/OpenOffice.org Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55 D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500 http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]