OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Dear TC members,

in the TC call on Monday we discussed that the next ODF 1.2 part 1 draft
that gets available may be a candidate for a public review. I have
uploaded that draft on Tuesday, and and now would like to make the
following motion:


Shall the OASIS ODF TC approve ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD03 Rev 07

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00002.html

and the corresponding schema files

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200910/msg00455.html

as a Committee Draft, and shall that Committee Draft be send out for a
60-day Public Review, with the external stakeholders listed below being
notified?

- OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC,
- OASIS ODF Adoption TC,
- JTC1/SC34,
- International Digital Publishing Forum
- W3C WebApp WG.

Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
(ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?

Best regards

Michael


-- 
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

For these external stakeholders:

- International Digital Publishing Forum
- W3C WebApp WG.

I think only the Packaging part was really of interest to them.  So I'd 
remove them from the list for Parts 1 and 2.

But with that change, if agreeable to you, I'd second the motion.

-Rob




From:
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg 

Dear TC members,

last week I had made a motion for approving ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD03 Rev 07
as Committee Draft, and to send it out for a 60-day public review. This
motion has been seconded.

Dennis made a motion to split the ballot into one for the Committee
Draft approval, and one for the public review. This motion has not been
seconded.

Dennis further made a motion to extend the public review period to 90
days. This motion has been seconded. This means that we not only have to
vote regarding a CD and a public review, but also about the duration of 
the public review (60 or 90 days).

To consider that motion on the hand, and to provide the TC with the
flexibility to possibly revise the draft after 60 days review or to
conduct a combined review of all three parts after 60 days on the other
hand, Rob has made the following proposal: We start with a 60 day public 
review, but possibly vote for extending the review by 30 days towards 
the end of the review. He has further confirmed with the OASIS TC 
administration that this is possible.

Essentially, this means that the requested ballot regarding extending 
the public review to 90 days would be deferred towards the end the 
public review if it is not withdrawn or replaced by other motions. If we 
include the option to run a ballot regarding extending the public review 
any time between now and the end of the public review, we actually 
consider both motions that have been seconded, but also Rob's proposal.

I therefore intent to setup the following ballot:

=====
Shall the OASIS ODF TC approve ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD03 Rev 07

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00002.html

and the corresponding schema files

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200910/msg00455.html

as a Committee Draft, and shall that Committee Draft be send out for a
60-day Public Review, with the option to extend the public review by 30
days, if a motion for this is made and approved before or during the
public review.

Shall further the external stakeholders listed below being
notified regarding the public review?

- OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC,
- OASIS ODF Adoption TC,
- JTC1/SC34.


Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
(ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
=====

I intent to set up an additional ballot for extending the review by 30
days in parallel if that is requested by those TC members who made the 
motion to extend the public review to 90 days, or seconded that.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
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

Michael,

Technically, I think a better way to look at my motion was as one to amend
your motion to change the Public Review duration from 60 days to 90 days. 

Since you (the mover) did not accept my amendment, I withdraw the motion to
amend the Public Review duration.  

I think that is tidier.  

I appreciate that an extension of an in-progress Public Review period is
permissible, and we can take that up with a new motion if and when the need
arises.

 - Dennis

PS: I think, technically, it is not possible to table a motion to amend
another motion.  The motion to amend must be dispensed with first.  In any
case, I withdraw the motion and will be more precise in the language I use
in future motions on the list.



                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00063.html
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 04:25
To: OpenDocument Mailing List
Subject: [office] Revised ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion

[ ... ]

Dennis further made a motion to extend the public review period to 90
days. This motion has been seconded. This means that we not only have to
vote regarding a CD and a public review, but also about the duration of 
the public review (60 or 90 days).

To consider that motion on the hand, and to provide the TC with the
flexibility to possibly revise the draft after 60 days review or to
conduct a combined review of all three parts after 60 days on the other
hand, Rob has made the following proposal: We start with a 60 day public 
review, but possibly vote for extending the review by 30 days towards 
the end of the review. He has further confirmed with the OASIS TC 
administration that this is possible.

Essentially, this means that the requested ballot regarding extending 
the public review to 90 days would be deferred towards the end the 
public review if it is not withdrawn or replaced by other motions. If we 
include the option to run a ballot regarding extending the public review 
any time between now and the end of the public review, we actually 
consider both motions that have been seconded, but also Rob's proposal.

[ ... ]

Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
> Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
> (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
> draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
>
Hi Michael,

I think a clarification is missing here - which ODF version will we
use to publish this authoritative document in?

Regards,

-- Thorsten

I asked:
> > Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
> > (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
> > draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
> 
> I think a clarification is missing here - which ODF version will we
> use to publish this authoritative document in?
> 
Hi Michael,

so looking into OpenDocument-v1.2-cd05.zip it seems the answer is
"1.2" - isn't that a bit self-referential? 

(and sorry for getting back to this so late in the game)

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 15:14 -0600, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> I asked:
> > > Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
> > > (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
> > > draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
> > 
> > I think a clarification is missing here - which ODF version will we
> > use to publish this authoritative document in?
> > 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> so looking into OpenDocument-v1.2-cd05.zip it seems the answer is
> "1.2" - isn't that a bit self-referential? 
> 
> (and sorry for getting back to this so late in the game)
> 

This has come up before. As far as I am concerned there is no way we can
publish the authoritative version of ODF 1.2 in an ODF 1.2 document.

(If we did that it would conceivably be possible that there could be an
implementation that renders the standard with a different content but
conforms with that different content.

Andreas

Hi Thorsten,

On 06/04/10 23:14, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> I asked:
>>> Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
>>> (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
>>> draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
>> I think a clarification is missing here - which ODF version will we
>> use to publish this authoritative document in?
>>
> Hi Michael,
> 
> so looking into OpenDocument-v1.2-cd05.zip it seems the answer is
> "1.2" - isn't that a bit self-referential? 

It is comment practice. If you look at the various HTML specification, 
then the HTML 3.2 specification is an HTML 3.2 document, the HTML 4.01 
specification is an HTML 4 document, and so on.

Best regards

Michael
> 
> (and sorry for getting back to this so late in the game)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- Thorsten
> 


-- 
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: Jürgen Kunz

On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 03:37 -0600, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02
- Hamburg wrote:
> Hi Thorsten,
> 
> On 06/04/10 23:14, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > I asked:
> >>> Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
> >>> (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
> >>> draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
> >> I think a clarification is missing here - which ODF version will we
> >> use to publish this authoritative document in?
> >>
> > Hi Michael,
> > 
> > so looking into OpenDocument-v1.2-cd05.zip it seems the answer is
> > "1.2" - isn't that a bit self-referential? 
> 
> It is comment practice. If you look at the various HTML specification, 
> then the HTML 3.2 specification is an HTML 3.2 document, the HTML 4.01 
> specification is an HTML 4 document, and so on.
> 
No. The primary html 4.01 standard is a text file. (At least that's
listed first by w3c.)


Andreas

Mmz, would there be a noticeable difference between saving it as ODF 1.1 vs 1.2 ?
(Outline umbering issue perhaps ?)

Bart

________________________________________
From: Andreas J. Guelzow [andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:30 PM
To: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
Cc: Thorsten Behrens; OpenDocument Mailing List
Subject: Re: [office] Revised ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion

On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 03:37 -0600, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02
- Hamburg wrote:
> Hi Thorsten,
>
> On 06/04/10 23:14, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > I asked:
> >>> Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
> >>> (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
> >>> draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
> >> I think a clarification is missing here - which ODF version will we
> >> use to publish this authoritative document in?
> >>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > so looking into OpenDocument-v1.2-cd05.zip it seems the answer is
> > "1.2" - isn't that a bit self-referential?
>
> It is comment practice. If you look at the various HTML specification,
> then the HTML 3.2 specification is an HTML 3.2 document, the HTML 4.01
> specification is an HTML 4 document, and so on.
>
No. The primary html 4.01 standard is a text file. (At least that's
listed first by w3c.)


Andreas


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

On 06/07/10 15:30, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 03:37 -0600, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02
> - Hamburg wrote:
>> Hi Thorsten,
>>
>> On 06/04/10 23:14, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>>> I asked:
>>>>> Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
>>>>> (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
>>>>> draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
>>>> I think a clarification is missing here - which ODF version will we
>>>> use to publish this authoritative document in?
>>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> so looking into OpenDocument-v1.2-cd05.zip it seems the answer is
>>> "1.2" - isn't that a bit self-referential? 
>> It is comment practice. If you look at the various HTML specification, 
>> then the HTML 3.2 specification is an HTML 3.2 document, the HTML 4.01 
>> specification is an HTML 4 document, and so on.
>>
> No. The primary html 4.01 standard is a text file. (At least that's
> listed first by w3c.)

Is it? If I look at

http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/html

then the link for HTML 4.01 references the HTML 4.01 specification in 
HTML 4.01 format.

The link for XHTML 1.1 references the XHTML 1.1 specification in XHTML 
1.1 format. There is even no text file.

Michael

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> 


-- 
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: Jürgen Kunz

I agree that the URL for the HTML version of the HTML 4.01 specification is
listed first, with the alternative formats, including text, on the next
line.

I also confirm that the latest version in HTML has this in its first line:


It is also the case that the HTML 4.01 W3C Proposed Recommendation of
1999-08-24 is now in HTML 4.01 Transitional. And the HTML 4.0 W3C
Recommendations are still published with HTML 4.0 Transitional DOCTYPE
declarations.  

On the other hand, the last Working Document for HTML 4.0 is put up in HTML
with no DOCTYPE declaration of any kind at

"Dennis E. Hamilton" 

On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 11:16 -0600, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> The TC is required to provide the CDs in editable source, PDF and X/HTML. 
> The format of the editable source is a factual question.  If it was indeed 
> authored in draft ODF 1.2 as written by OOo 3.2.x, then we are obliged to 
> deliver the document in that format.  If it was written in Word DOC format 
> or WordPerfect format, then we would deliver it in that.  There is no 
> requirement that the editable format be a standard. 
> 

OOo 3.2.x does not write ODF1.2 It claims it does but it is clear that
that is not correct:
DF1.2 is not yet approved so how can it know what ODF1.2 really is

Since the document isn't finally "authored" until it is approved, this
discussion really relates to in which format should it be finally
authored.

Andreas

Providing a standard in the language it intends to standardize only
works if we assume everybody already agrees. If I were going to write a
description for the grammar and vacabulary of a new language, it would
be useless to give that document in that language, since nobody could
read it yet. Similarly, with ODF1.2. You can only know what an ODF1.2
document truely says if you already know how to speak ODF1.2.

Andreas

PS If you go to the HTML4.01 standard it says
---------------------------------------------------
HTML 4.01 Specification
W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999
This version:
        http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224
        (plain text [794Kb], gzip'ed tar archive of HTML files [371Kb],
        a .zip archive of HTML files [405Kb], gzip'ed Postscript file
        [746Kb, 389 pages], gzip'ed PDF file [963Kb])
---------------------------------------------------
The plain text is listed first. (It is not really surprising that they
show you the html version if you access it through the web.)