OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Hi,

this is actually a follow-up on Rob's suggestions regarding submission
of ODF 1.1 to JTC1.

I think what Rob suggest may work, but read James Clark's last mail to
the TC as if we can submit a diff between ODF 1.0 2nd edition and ODF
1.1 to JTC1. Unless we are proven wrong with that assumption, I think we
should assume that this is possible.

I further think it may be reasonable to work out some kind of plan how
we continue to maintain the three ODF versions (1.0, 1.1 and 1.2) as
soon as ODF 1.1 has been submitted to ISO. The motivation of submitting
ODF 1.1 to JTC1 is to get ISO 26300 in sync with OASIS ODF. However, ODF
1.2 is close to its completion on the OASIS side. When it has been
approved as OASIS standard, we will have three versions of ODF at OASIS.
We may receive defect reports for all three, and may prepare errata
documents for all three. To avoid having a confusing number of errata
documents and ODF variants (at OASIS and ISO), it may therefore be
reasonable that we agree (with JTC1/SC34) that we produce errata
documents only for the latest ODF version that is available at OASIS.
The exception would be the ODF 1.1 errata that we produce as part of the
effort to synchronize ISO 26300 with ODF 1.1.

It may further be worth to ask OASIS to check with JTC1 whether our
suggestions regarding the future maintenance of ODF 1.0/1.1/1.2 works
for them before submitting ODF 1.1.

So, here is what I suggest, based on Rob's suggestions:

1) The ODF TC prepares a diff between ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.0 2nd edition.
The format of the diff would be an ODF 1.1 specification which contains
the changes from ODF 1.0 2nd edition as ODF change tracking information.
It may not include changes to styles that we made between ODF 1.0 2nd
edition and ODF 1.1, but since these are only editorial changes, that
should not be an issue.

2) The ODF TC asks OASIS to submit that annotated ODF 1.1 specification
to JTC1, so that SC34 can consider to create an amendment to ISO/IEC
26300:2006, scoped to make that standard technically equivalent to OASIS
ODF 1.1.

3) In parallel or before step 2), the ODF TC asks the OASIS board to
accept a waiver regarding the interoperability demo which is required by
the OASIS liaison policy.

4) The ODF TC submits comments shortly before the FPDAM ballot ends to
reconcile the amendment with all current approved corrigenda for ODF 1.0
and 1.1.

5) The ODF TC then takes those same comments, plus whatever other ballot
comments the TC receives and agrees to resolve for ODF 1.1, and prepares
Approved Errata for ODF 1.1 corresponding to ISO/IEC 26300:2006/Amd.1

6) The ODF TC agrees on the following proposal for future maintenance of
ODF/ISO 26300 between now and the approval of the ODF 1.2 as an ISO
standard, and asks OASIS to discuss this with JTC1 prior to the
submission of ODF 1.1:

6a) The ODF TC stops its work on the 2nd ODF 1.0 errata documents,
which would include responses to the 2nd and 3rd defect report from
JTC1/SC34, and instead includes any responses to that defect reports
into the ODF 1.1 errata mentioned in 5).

6c) The ODF TC continues to invite JTC1/SC34 to any public review of ODF
1.2 as a whole or of parts of it, so that defects that are reported by
JTC1/SC34 regarding ODF 1.2 may be resolved before ODF 1.2 is submitted
to JTC1.

6c) The ODF TC will ask OASIS to submit ODF 1.2 to JTC immediately after
its approval as an OASIS standard.

6d) Future defect reports from JTC1/SC34 will be addressed by ODF 1.2
erratas only, regardless whether these have been submitted against ODF
1.0, ODF 1.1 or ODF 1.2 (or the corresponding ISO standards). Defect
reports that the ODF TC receives before the public reviews of ODF 1.2
closes and which are in the scope of the public reviews may however be
resolved in ODF 1.2 itself.


Suggestions are welcome.


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.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote on 01/08/2010 08:15:29 AM:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> this is actually a follow-up on Rob's suggestions regarding submission
> of ODF 1.1 to JTC1.
> 
> I think what Rob suggest may work, but read James Clark's last mail to
> the TC as if we can submit a diff between ODF 1.0 2nd edition and ODF
> 1.1 to JTC1. Unless we are proven wrong with that assumption, I think we
> should assume that this is possible.
> 

I don't think this is possible under OASIS TC Process rules.  The Liaison 
Policy requires that material submitted to other organizations be an OASIS 
Standard or Approved Errata.  In any case that is question for Mary more 
than Jamie.

The simpler solution, is to simply submit ODF 1.1 according to the Liaison 
Policy and then let Patrick and other participants in SC34/WG6 (including 
Dennis, Svante, you and me) work to develop an amendment from that.  That 
puts the preparation of the amendment on WG6's plate, so their clock is 
ticking, not ours.  Otherwise we will continue to spend our meetings 
discussing ODF 1.1 diffs rather than remaining ODF 1.2 defects.


> I further think it may be reasonable to work out some kind of plan how
> we continue to maintain the three ODF versions (1.0, 1.1 and 1.2) as
> soon as ODF 1.1 has been submitted to ISO. The motivation of submitting
> ODF 1.1 to JTC1 is to get ISO 26300 in sync with OASIS ODF. However, ODF
> 1.2 is close to its completion on the OASIS side. When it has been
> approved as OASIS standard, we will have three versions of ODF at OASIS.
> We may receive defect reports for all three, and may prepare errata
> documents for all three. To avoid having a confusing number of errata
> documents and ODF variants (at OASIS and ISO), it may therefore be
> reasonable that we agree (with JTC1/SC34) that we produce errata
> documents only for the latest ODF version that is available at OASIS.
> The exception would be the ODF 1.1 errata that we produce as part of the
> effort to synchronize ISO 26300 with ODF 1.1.
> 

When we submit ODF 1.2 we can state how we want ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1 to be 
treated.  This might include canceling and replacing them with ODF 1.2, 
stabilizing them or continuing to maintain them.  It is worth having a 
discussion on our preferences at that time.  But for now ODF 1.0 is the 
current ISO standard and any NB of JTC1 may submit a defect report.  There 
is no one is SC34 or JTC1 who can prevent that. NB's have the right to 
submit defect reports. 

-Rob