< Return to Ballot details

Vote Details

Ballot: Approve "ODF 1.1 Interop Profile - cd 01 rev 1" as cd 02
Company:
Individual
Vote:
No
Comment:
It should probably be stated somewhere (or did I miss it) that the section number in chapter 3 refer to the matching section numbers in ODF 1.1.

1.5 second bullet: ODF 1.1 fails to define the term "processing instruction". It does appear to define "cursor position processing instruction", but not just "processing instruction". So we eitehr need to define this here or use a differnt term.
2.2.1 When we say "arbitrary (custom) metadata elements", I believe we mean "arbitrary user-defined metadata (using the element)". We should say so.
3.1 first bullet: I believe that this is supposed to refer to the main meta data, but dc:date and dc:creator at least can also appear in 12.3 Change Tracking Metadata, so it could (and should) justifiably appear more than once in an ODF11i-Doc.
3.1 sixth bullet: Does this refer only to those within ? It should.
3.1.1 second bullet: Which ODF Implementation? I assume that is should be the last ODF producer who saved that file. It should say that.
3.1.1: In view of ODF 1.1 3.1.1 "Conforming applications (...) shall not deliberately implement a different behavior depending on a certain generator string." What is the point of requiring a since a conforming application may not act on it. (I don't understand how a computer program could do anything that is not deliberate.)
3.1.17 first bullet: An interesting attempt to define a term using undefined terms. WHat is "total accumulated time spent editing the document." Since we are talking about ODF11i-Impl, I assume that this may be accumulated CPU time so it will usually be well less than 1 hour... Or perhaps we are talking about the time the implementation had focus while the document was open. Or perhaps the total time the doucment was open. Or....
4.6 first bullet: This is impossible for an implementation that does not support change tracking. If in such an implementation a user inserts text in an previously inserted (and tracked) text section, it will have effectively changed the tracking information since the newly inserted text has suddenly become part of the earlier insertion. (The change-tracking information only inserts start and end marker but does not remember the text. In fact it stores no info that would enable it ti discover the change.) So at a minimum the part "even if the ...tracking" should be stricken.
4.6 second bullet: I believe "hide the content of text:tracked-changes" should be "hide the content of the element".
8.1.3 first bullet: this appears to be implied by the second bullet sincethe minimal formula would consist of a namespace prefix folloew by an equality sign, ie. "gnum="
8.1.3 fifth bullet: WHat happens if this conflicts with the syntax and semantics defined by the prefix?
9.3.3 first bullet: (I obviously missed the discussion on this, but I don't see the point especially in view of the fifth bullet.)
9.3.3 second bullet: Why does this say "either(...) or"? Shouldn't it be allowed in the interest of interoperability to store both an SVG and a PNG like Gnumeric is currently doing?
10.5 "with a on-empty chart:..." is probably not right.

Revision History:
wd 5: I don't think that "splitted" is an English word. This should read "split 8.9 Table formula into pre- and post-OFF approval". Note that there are two changes in this clause.