OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

 View Only

  • 1.  Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

    Posted 09-24-2008 11:47 
    All,

On 23.09.08 01:10, Doug Mahugh wrote:
> In general I agree with your point, Andreas, but since this was corrected to "style:wrap-dynamic-threshold" in ODF 1.1, it seems to me that reverting to the typo of version 1.0 in ODF 1.2 may be confusing to implementers.

Doug: That's a good point and something I believe we should consider.

One more remark:

The section in question reads as follows:

*****
Dynamic Wrap Threshold

The style:wrap-dynamic-threshold attribute is evaluated only if the
style:wrap attribute has a value of dynamic. It specifies the minimum
distance between the page or column border and the object for which
wrapping will be enabled.

******

The error report in question is:

******
The first para in 15.27.22 says style:wrap-dynamic-threshold, while
the schema fragment in this subsection says style:wrap-dynamic-treshold.
("h" between "t" and "r" is missing.)
******

We have spelled the attribute name correctly one time (in the
description), and one time incorrectly (in the schema). The heading also
says "Threshold". This means that the spelling in fact is inconsistent,
and the question actually is what implementors reading the specification
would assume what the name of the attribute is. My personal opinion is
that implementors notice the inconsistency, assume that it was not our
intention to misspell the attribute, and implement it with the correct
spelling. I further would assume that they do not implement a misspelled
attribute name (if the spelling is correct in the description) without
notifying us about the issue or asking us what our intention was. I
therefore think that the correction of the misspelled word is not
substantive, even if it occurs in the schema. Please note that my
conclusion would be different if either "treshold" would be a correct
spelled word, or if we would have misspelled it in the description and
the heading, too.

Anyway that is my personal opinion, and I do understand that others come
to a different conclusion.

My suggestion for resolving this issue is that we continue to discuss
this on the mailing list until the end of this week. We may then have a
small ballot in the TC on Monday whether or not to include this
resolution in the errata before we conduct the other three votes
required to start a public review of the draft.

Best regards

Michael


> 
> FYI, we have not implemented this attribute in Word, because Word doesn't have the option to specify a minimum distance with dynamic wrapping.  So our particular implementation is not affected by the resolution, regardless of which approach is used.
> 
> Regards,
> Doug
> 
> 
>


  • 2.  RE: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

    Posted 09-25-2008 01:01 
    While we are thinking this over prior to the next call, I have some further
observations:

1. The only schema file for ODF 1.0 on the OASIS site has the -treshold
spelling (although the 1.1 schema has -threshold).  This is not normative,
but it is something to keep in mind.

2. We do not know if translations of the specification carry the -treshold
and -threshold spellings in literal attribute names and translate otherwise
when threshold is used in the title and in the prose.  So a developer
concluding there is a misspelling in the schema may be a little less
obvious.

3. If no ODF 1.0 implementation has ever supported style:wrap="dynamic" we
would be off the hook.  The one problem is with ODF 1.0 implementations
evidently still being provided and used in order to be IS 26300 compliant. 

 - Dennis

PS: I agree that the easiest way out of this situation is if we could simply
make the correction in the ODF 1.0 specifications.  Other resolutions (since
it is changed in 1.1 and we expect that change to continue into 1.2) are far
messier (unless the feature is still not implemented).


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 3.  Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

    Posted 09-25-2008 01:18 
    Dennis,

Well, while I agree as to what the OASIS rules say now, isn't it simply 
the case that we need a new set of rules?

Why not use this to illustrate how lame the current errata process is in 
fact and suggest a new set of rules that cover both editorial as well as 
technical errors.

My suggestion would be to have editorial errors, for either committee 
specifications or OASIS standards to be approved only by a TC vote. 
Technical errors would require a TC vote and then a thirty day default 
ballot of the general membership (in other words, if you don't vote, you 
automatically approve). Simply majority wins.

That would put all fixes within a 45 day time frame, assuming we all 
moved at top speed.

True, we would have to define editorial and technical but I suspect we 
could steal something along those lines. All told, less than a page of 
text and a process that would get TC's back into the business of fixing 
their work and out of the check list chase that is the present process.

I can outline a proposed new errata process along the lines I suggest 
above fairly quickly if anyone is interested in pursuing a more 
systematic solution.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> While we are thinking this over prior to the next call, I have some further
> observations:
>
> 1. The only schema file for ODF 1.0 on the OASIS site has the -treshold
> spelling (although the 1.1 schema has -threshold).  This is not normative,
> but it is something to keep in mind.
>
> 2. We do not know if translations of the specification carry the -treshold
> and -threshold spellings in literal attribute names and translate otherwise
> when threshold is used in the title and in the prose.  So a developer
> concluding there is a misspelling in the schema may be a little less
> obvious.
>
> 3. If no ODF 1.0 implementation has ever supported style:wrap="dynamic" we
> would be off the hook.  The one problem is with ODF 1.0 implementations
> evidently still being provided and used in order to be IS 26300 compliant. 
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: I agree that the easiest way out of this situation is if we could simply
> make the correction in the ODF 1.0 specifications.  Other resolutions (since
> it is changed in 1.1 and we expect that change to continue into 1.2) are far
> messier (unless the feature is still not implemented).
>
> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 4.  Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

    Posted 09-25-2008 08:10 
    Hi all,

I did some research, and noticed that we by intention did not include 
this schema change into ODF 1.0 2nd edition, but ODF 1.1 only:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200605/msg00098.html

I therefore suggest that we do not revert this decision, but simply omit 
that change in the errata.

Best regards

Michael



On 09/25/08 03:19, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Dennis,
> 
> Well, while I agree as to what the OASIS rules say now, isn't it simply 
> the case that we need a new set of rules?
> 
> Why not use this to illustrate how lame the current errata process is in 
> fact and suggest a new set of rules that cover both editorial as well as 
> technical errors.
> 
> My suggestion would be to have editorial errors, for either committee 
> specifications or OASIS standards to be approved only by a TC vote. 
> Technical errors would require a TC vote and then a thirty day default 
> ballot of the general membership (in other words, if you don't vote, you 
> automatically approve). Simply majority wins.
> 
> That would put all fixes within a 45 day time frame, assuming we all 
> moved at top speed.
> 
> True, we would have to define editorial and technical but I suspect we 
> could steal something along those lines. All told, less than a page of 
> text and a process that would get TC's back into the business of fixing 
> their work and out of the check list chase that is the present process.
> 
> I can outline a proposed new errata process along the lines I suggest 
> above fairly quickly if anyone is interested in pursuing a more 
> systematic solution.
> 
> Hope you are having a great day!
> 
> Patrick
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> While we are thinking this over prior to the next call, I have some 
>> further
>> observations:
>>
>> 1. The only schema file for ODF 1.0 on the OASIS site has the -treshold
>> spelling (although the 1.1 schema has -threshold).  This is not 
>> normative,
>> but it is something to keep in mind.
>>
>> 2. We do not know if translations of the specification carry the 
>> -treshold
>> and -threshold spellings in literal attribute names and translate 
>> otherwise
>> when threshold is used in the title and in the prose.  So a developer
>> concluding there is a misspelling in the schema may be a little less
>> obvious.
>>
>> 3. If no ODF 1.0 implementation has ever supported 
>> style:wrap="dynamic" we
>> would be off the hook.  The one problem is with ODF 1.0 implementations
>> evidently still being provided and used in order to be IS 26300 
>> compliant.
>>  - Dennis
>>
>> PS: I agree that the easiest way out of this situation is if we could 
>> simply
>> make the correction in the ODF 1.0 specifications.  Other resolutions 
>> (since
>> it is changed in 1.1 and we expect that change to continue into 1.2) 
>> are far
>> messier (unless the feature is still not implemented).
>>
>> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 5.  Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

    Posted 09-25-2008 08:26 
    Michael,

Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I did some research, and noticed that we by intention did not include 
> this schema change into ODF 1.0 2nd edition, but ODF 1.1 only:
>
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200605/msg00098.html
>
> I therefore suggest that we do not revert this decision, but simply 
> omit that change in the errata.
>
OK, but you say in that post:

> I'm currently preparing a new draft which corrects the spelling errors, 
> except those in the schema. While the spelling errors in the schema are clear 
> spelling errors, too, I believe the best way to correct them is to add 
> correct spelled attributes/attribute values to the schema for a 1.1, and to 
> declare the misspelled ones to be depricated.
That would imply to me that *if* we were to fix this in ODF 1.0 second 
edition, that we would add the corrected attribute and deprecate the 
mis-spelled one.

Yes?

Just checking to see if we were to fix it, how you are reading our prior 
action.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick


> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On 09/25/08 03:19, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>> Dennis,
>>
>> Well, while I agree as to what the OASIS rules say now, isn't it 
>> simply the case that we need a new set of rules?
>>
>> Why not use this to illustrate how lame the current errata process is 
>> in fact and suggest a new set of rules that cover both editorial as 
>> well as technical errors.
>>
>> My suggestion would be to have editorial errors, for either committee 
>> specifications or OASIS standards to be approved only by a TC vote. 
>> Technical errors would require a TC vote and then a thirty day 
>> default ballot of the general membership (in other words, if you 
>> don't vote, you automatically approve). Simply majority wins.
>>
>> That would put all fixes within a 45 day time frame, assuming we all 
>> moved at top speed.
>>
>> True, we would have to define editorial and technical but I suspect 
>> we could steal something along those lines. All told, less than a 
>> page of text and a process that would get TC's back into the business 
>> of fixing their work and out of the check list chase that is the 
>> present process.
>>
>> I can outline a proposed new errata process along the lines I suggest 
>> above fairly quickly if anyone is interested in pursuing a more 
>> systematic solution.
>>
>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> While we are thinking this over prior to the next call, I have some 
>>> further
>>> observations:
>>>
>>> 1. The only schema file for ODF 1.0 on the OASIS site has the -treshold
>>> spelling (although the 1.1 schema has -threshold).  This is not 
>>> normative,
>>> but it is something to keep in mind.
>>>
>>> 2. We do not know if translations of the specification carry the 
>>> -treshold
>>> and -threshold spellings in literal attribute names and translate 
>>> otherwise
>>> when threshold is used in the title and in the prose.  So a developer
>>> concluding there is a misspelling in the schema may be a little less
>>> obvious.
>>>
>>> 3. If no ODF 1.0 implementation has ever supported 
>>> style:wrap="dynamic" we
>>> would be off the hook.  The one problem is with ODF 1.0 implementations
>>> evidently still being provided and used in order to be IS 26300 
>>> compliant.
>>>  - Dennis
>>>
>>> PS: I agree that the easiest way out of this situation is if we 
>>> could simply
>>> make the correction in the ODF 1.0 specifications.  Other 
>>> resolutions (since
>>> it is changed in 1.1 and we expect that change to continue into 1.2) 
>>> are far
>>> messier (unless the feature is still not implemented).
>>>
>>> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 6.  Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

    Posted 09-25-2008 10:54 
    Patrick,

On 09/25/08 10:28, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I did some research, and noticed that we by intention did not include 
>> this schema change into ODF 1.0 2nd edition, but ODF 1.1 only:
>>
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200605/msg00098.html
>>
>> I therefore suggest that we do not revert this decision, but simply 
>> omit that change in the errata.
>>
> OK, but you say in that post:
> 
>> I'm currently preparing a new draft which corrects the spelling 
>> errors, except those in the schema. While the spelling errors in the 
>> schema are clear spelling errors, too, I believe the best way to 
>> correct them is to add correct spelled attributes/attribute values to 
>> the schema for a 1.1, and to declare the misspelled ones to be 
>> depricated.
> That would imply to me that *if* we were to fix this in ODF 1.0 second 
> edition, that we would add the corrected attribute and deprecate the 
> mis-spelled one.
> 
> Yes?

This is one option. The options we discussed for ODF 1.1 are here:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200606/msg00075.html

We actually decided to take option b), that is, to just correct the 
errors in the schema. This still may be an option for the ODF 1.0 
errata, too.

However, since we received the error report for 15.27.22 already and 
resolved it already by making a change in ODF 1.1 although we could have 
made a change in ODF 1.0 2nd edition, I think it is valid to refer to 
that resolution, rather than reverting that resolution.

Michael
> 
> Just checking to see if we were to fix it, how you are reading our prior 
> action.
> 
> Hope you are having a great day!
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
>> Best regards
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/25/08 03:19, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>> Dennis,
>>>
>>> Well, while I agree as to what the OASIS rules say now, isn't it 
>>> simply the case that we need a new set of rules?
>>>
>>> Why not use this to illustrate how lame the current errata process is 
>>> in fact and suggest a new set of rules that cover both editorial as 
>>> well as technical errors.
>>>
>>> My suggestion would be to have editorial errors, for either committee 
>>> specifications or OASIS standards to be approved only by a TC vote. 
>>> Technical errors would require a TC vote and then a thirty day 
>>> default ballot of the general membership (in other words, if you 
>>> don't vote, you automatically approve). Simply majority wins.
>>>
>>> That would put all fixes within a 45 day time frame, assuming we all 
>>> moved at top speed.
>>>
>>> True, we would have to define editorial and technical but I suspect 
>>> we could steal something along those lines. All told, less than a 
>>> page of text and a process that would get TC's back into the business 
>>> of fixing their work and out of the check list chase that is the 
>>> present process.
>>>
>>> I can outline a proposed new errata process along the lines I suggest 
>>> above fairly quickly if anyone is interested in pursuing a more 
>>> systematic solution.
>>>
>>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>> While we are thinking this over prior to the next call, I have some 
>>>> further
>>>> observations:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The only schema file for ODF 1.0 on the OASIS site has the -treshold
>>>> spelling (although the 1.1 schema has -threshold).  This is not 
>>>> normative,
>>>> but it is something to keep in mind.
>>>>
>>>> 2. We do not know if translations of the specification carry the 
>>>> -treshold
>>>> and -threshold spellings in literal attribute names and translate 
>>>> otherwise
>>>> when threshold is used in the title and in the prose.  So a developer
>>>> concluding there is a misspelling in the schema may be a little less
>>>> obvious.
>>>>
>>>> 3. If no ODF 1.0 implementation has ever supported 
>>>> style:wrap="dynamic" we
>>>> would be off the hook.  The one problem is with ODF 1.0 implementations
>>>> evidently still being provided and used in order to be IS 26300 
>>>> compliant.
>>>>  - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> PS: I agree that the easiest way out of this situation is if we 
>>>> could simply
>>>> make the correction in the ODF 1.0 specifications.  Other 
>>>> resolutions (since
>>>> it is changed in 1.1 and we expect that change to continue into 1.2) 
>>>> are far
>>>> messier (unless the feature is still not implemented).
>>>>
>>>> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 7.  Re: [office] Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

    Posted 09-25-2008 14:19 
    Michael,

Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
> Patrick,
>


  • 8.  RE: [office] Errata: Proposal for 15.27.22 "-treshold"

    Posted 09-25-2008 17:20 
    I am completely aligned with the previous direction.  Michael, thanks for
finding the resolution that was made when ODF 1.1 made the corrections.

I propose the following:

Step A (for action on 2008-09-29):

Option 1: Remove the errata item for 15.27.22

Option 2: Replace the errata item for 15.27.22 with one that corrects the
*text* occurrence of "style:wrap-dynamic-threshold" to have -treshold
instead.  The prose would not change.  [This is my favorite because it
attracts attention to the situation and acknowledges that the schema rules.]

Step B:  For later.  In time for the next errata or some sort of supplement
to ODF 1.1, address the deprecation of all schema misspellings that were
expected to be incorporated in ODF 1.1
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200606/msg00075.html
This also gives us time to look at additional breaking changes of this kind
that have been identified for ODF 1.2.  I'd like to see a broader look at
up- and down-level compatibility and ways/guidance for to minimize the
impact of breaking changes and unknown features.
We need to be clear on how to do deprecation, then do the deprecations, and
have a clear policy/approach for that now and into the future, picking up on
this thread:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200606/msg00087.html

 - Dennis

PS: I don't understand why option (c) was not taken since all of the posts
that responded to Michael's proposal were supportive of doing a deprecation
at 1.1.  It does look like option (b) was actually implemented, in that the
schema was changed for 1.1, but nothing was done about the 1.0 schema and no
deprecation was introduced in 1.1.  I haven't checked committee minutes for
the June 2006 time period to see how explicit this was.



    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 9.  RE: [office] Errata: Proposal for 15.27.22 "-treshold"

    Posted 09-25-2008 17:55 
    Background.  No change to my proposal.

I did some more nosing around, and apparently this is how option (b) - just
fix the schema - was taken:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200606/msg00102.html

"Schema spelling errors
(Michael) should we include mechanisms that allow backwards 
interoperability for the misspelled schema
(James) Process for this in ISO allows editors to just correct this
(Lars) we should do likewise
[no objections]
(Michael) can we proceed likewise for any other schema spelling issues 
that come up?
[no objections]
RESOLUTION: Correction of schema spelling error is part of editorial
process"

This is based on understanding of ISO procedures.  It seems that the current
OASIS rules for errata are different.  And the correction were done only in
1.1 which has not been taken to OASIS Standard as was expected at that time.


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


Related Content