OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

 View Only

  • 1.  Errata: Substantive Schema Change in 15.27.22?

    Posted 09-22-2008 05:03 
    With regard to 2008-09-22 agenda item 4b, I notice that a change to the ODF schema is technically a substantive change.  I am sure this has been talked through before, and I apologize for bringing it up again except I am expected to deal with agenda item 4b, which is an attestation that there are no substantive changes.

What I'm looking at is the change in 15.27.22 p.651 line 31 where the attribute name style:wrap-dynamic-treshold is changed to style:wrap-dynamic-threshold (adding an h after the t in treshold).  

OBSERVATIONS

1. I understand that this was unintended and that the change is to the spelling that is used in the prose that describes the attribute.  In prose, that would clearly be a typo.  In a schema, it is a different matter (even though a mistake).

2. I also see that the ODF 1.1 schema has style:wrap-dynamic-threshold.

3. The only ODF 1.0 schema supplied on the OASIS TC page still has style:wrap-dynamic-threshold.

4. In particular, there does not seem to be a separate schema file available for ODF 1.0 (Second Edition) cs1.  The public downloads for ISO/IEC 26300:2006 do not provide a schema file at all.

QUESTIONS

1. So is this considered non-substantive even though it is significant as schema text, or should we maybe pull that one errata item out and think about it.

2. If the change is to be kept, what do we do about the schema files?


 - Dennis

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org


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

    Posted 09-22-2008 11:57 
    Dennis,

On 09/22/08 07:05, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> With regard to 2008-09-22 agenda item 4b, I notice that a change to the ODF schema is technically a substantive change.  I am sure this has been talked through before, and I apologize for bringing it up again except I am expected to deal with agenda item 4b, which is an attestation that there are no substantive changes.
> 
> What I'm looking at is the change in 15.27.22 p.651 line 31 where the attribute name style:wrap-dynamic-treshold is changed to style:wrap-dynamic-threshold (adding an h after the t in treshold).  
> 
> OBSERVATIONS
> 
> 1. I understand that this was unintended and that the change is to the spelling that is used in the prose that describes the attribute.  In prose, that would clearly be a typo.  In a schema, it is a different matter (even though a mistake).
> 
> 2. I also see that the ODF 1.1 schema has style:wrap-dynamic-threshold.
> 
> 3. The only ODF 1.0 schema supplied on the OASIS TC page still has style:wrap-dynamic-threshold.
> 
> 4. In particular, there does not seem to be a separate schema file available for ODF 1.0 (Second Edition) cs1.  The public downloads for ISO/IEC 26300:2006 do not provide a schema file at all.
> 
> QUESTIONS
> 
> 1. So is this considered non-substantive even though it is significant as schema text, or should we maybe pull that one errata item out and think about it.

That's an interesting question. The description of the attribute says 
"style:wrap-dynamic-threshold" while the schema says 
"style:wrap-dynamic-treshold". That's an obvious mismatch. Only one of 
the two spellings can be "correct" in the sense that this is the name 
that should be used in ODF documents.

The question is what implementors have assumed to be correct and what 
they therefore have implemented. Since there is an obvious spelling 
error in the schema, my assumption would be that they have used 
"style:wrap-dynamic-threshold" an in fact have assumed that the schema 
is wrong here. Under this assumption, correcting the spelling in the 
schema would be non-substantive.

> 
> 2. If the change is to be kept, what do we do about the schema files?

We may update them.

Michael
> 
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton
> ------------------
> NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
> mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
> http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering


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

    Posted 09-22-2008 13:49 
    A few things to note.

1) The standalone RNG schema files are not part of the ODF Standard.    We 
don't send them out for review and they are not part of the package that 
OASIS members vote on.

2) However the RNG schema files are provided as a convenience download on 
the TC's home page.

3) Section 1.4 defines what the normative schema is for ODF:

"The normative XML Schema for the OpenDocument format is embedded within 
this
specification. It can be obtained from the specification document by 
concatenating all schema
fragments contained in chapters 1 to 16. All schema fragments have a gray 
background color
and line numbers."

We have a script that creates the RNG files from the ODF text, extracting 
and concatanating these schema definition blocks.

4) Since the schema fragments are the normative schema definitions, if we 
have prose references to element or attribute names, and these references 
differ from those in the schema fragments, then the schema fragments are 
the definitive definitions.

5) OASIS defines a Substantive Change as "a change to a specification that 
would require a compliant application or implementation to be modified or 
rewritten in order to remain compliant."  Note that it says "would 
require" not "could require".

6) If any TC member knows of an ODF 1.0 implementation that would require 
modification in order to remain compliant with the proposed schema change, 
then they should speak up and say so.  We can always take this change out. 
 But, for example, if implementations generally do not implement this 
attribute, or if they silently have already made the spelling correction 
in their implementations, then this may not be a problem.  By having 
review on the TC as well as a 15-day public review, we give any 
implementation, whether represented on the TC or not, a fair opportunity 
to make this point.

-Rob



"Dennis E. Hamilton"


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

    Posted 09-22-2008 16:25 
    On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 09:52 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 6) If any TC member knows of an ODF 1.0 implementation that would require 
> modification in order to remain compliant with the proposed schema change, 
> then they should speak up and say so.  We can always take this change out. 
>  But, for example, if implementations generally do not implement this 
> attribute, or if they silently have already made the spelling correction 
> in their implementations, then this may not be a problem.  By having 
> review on the TC as well as a 15-day public review, we give any 
> implementation, whether represented on the TC or not, a fair opportunity 
> to make this point.

What about ODF 1.0 implementations that do not exist yet? Is it
understood that any new ODF 1.0 implementation will have no follow the
errata?

Andreas
-- 
Andreas J. Guelzow


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

    Posted 09-22-2008 16:53 
    "Andreas J. Guelzow"


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

    Posted 09-22-2008 18:33 
    On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 12:54 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> The OASIS's Approved Errata process says:  "Once approved, the Approved 
> Errata shall be with the specification it corrects, in any publication of 
> that specification."
> 
> Of course, it is possible that someone creates a new implementation based 
> on a pre-errata version of ODF 1.0 that they downloaded a year ago. 
> 
> But the intent is:
> 
> 1) The TC's work should be thoroughly reviewed before submitting it for 
> approval at Committee Specification and above.
> 2) That, combined with the 60-day public review at Committee Specification 
> stage, should find any critical technical flaws in the text.
> 3) Once approved as an OASIS Standard, we can fix minor (Not Substantive) 
> errors via the Errata process
> 4) But if some more serious technical flaw is found, especially one that 
> would require modifying existing conformant implementations,  it should be 
> fixed in a new version of the standard.
> 
> Note that a new version does not necessarily mean ODF 1.2.  If we found a 
> set of critical technical errors in ODF 1.0, we could always make an ODF 
> 1.01 version and send that through the approval process.  I'm not 
> recommending this, but that is the route for dealing with changes that 
> impact conformance.

Perhaps one should then stick with the intent: the missing "h" is
clearly not a "serious technical flaw" but changing the spec would
impact on any implementation. 

So I really see no reason to confuse things by making that change (I
intentionally do not say "correction").

Andreas


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

    Posted 09-22-2008 23:09 
    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.

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



    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


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

    Posted 09-29-2008 03:00 
    Doug Mahugh reported that Word 2007 does not support any -threshold on
dynamic wrapping and the Office 2007 ODF implementation is not affected.

I checked on the developer list of the SourceForge ODF Converter project to
see if they had encountered either -treshold or -threshold.

They have not encountered it and they do not treat it.

 - Dennis


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


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

    Posted 09-29-2008 04:02
      |   view attached

    Attachment(s)

    zip
    OOo-dynamicwrap.zip   133 KB 1 version


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

    Posted 09-22-2008 17:18 
    Andreas poses a good question.  I want to supplement Rob Weir's response (we
are crossing in the mail) posted at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00066.html


1. My understanding of the errata procedures is that we need some way to
accomplish this requirement from the OASIS Technical Committee Process:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#errata

"Once approved, the Approved Errata shall be with the specification it
corrects, in any publication of that specification. Disposition of Approved
Errata must be identified in the subsequent Public Review Draft of the
corrected specification."

2. I suspect that it would be good to follow the W3C practice of mentioning
in every specification where any errata for it are to be found (and there
might be a simple placeholder when no errata have [yet] been approved).  [I
am not sure how that works, or if it can work, in an edition provided as the
text for an ISO/IEC specification.]

3. The question also raises the prospect that there are those who are
working from ODF 1.0 specifications and only implementing ODF 1.0 by virtue
of the fact that they are relying on the ISO/IEC IS 26300 specification as
their authority.  We need to consider that this may be a requirement in
various international settings.

4. INSTANT CONCERNS.  On first principles, one might consider that the way
to resolve this is by deprecation starting in 1.1-1.2, with the introduction
of the preferred attribute-name spelling there, leaving 1.0 along (or even
correcting the text to have the treshold spelling too!).  Being practical,
it would be great to get the correction into 1.0, but it seems this will
depend on how that can be deal with at ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34, and whether that
can happen reasonably quickly.  While this is up in the air, it would be
good to consult with those who have or are implementing 1.1 and anticipatory
1.2s just how much trouble the deprecation of -treshold is, along with
support for it and -threshold.  I am also concerned that an errata review
period might not be noticed sufficiently to ensure that implementers notice,
especially beyond the current group of interested parties.  

More to ponder ...

 - Dennis


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


Related Content