OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Dear TC members,

the only proposal that I have and that I wish to be included into ODF 1.2 is

http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Table-Protected

It actually just resolves an ambiguity we have in ODF 1.1 between the 
text and the schema. The proposal contains the necessary background. I 
believe it is non controversial, and its discussion will take us less 
than 5 minutes.

I would like to set this proposal on the agenda of the next TC call. If 
you have any questions regarding the proposal, please send them to me 
prior to the call.

I have another proposal that I initially wanted to have included into 
ODF 1.2. It is the use of NVDL. Given the amount of proposals that have 
been requested to be considered for ODF 1.2, I withdraw that for ODF 1.2.

Thank you and 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, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

Michael,

I have a few observations about the current proposal at
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Table-Protected (2008-12-10 edit).

I think we need to take this one on very carefully.  We certainly need more
understanding of the impacts on current implementations and the consequences
of any selected approach.

A. DEFECT REPORT, NOT FEATURE REQUEST

I believe this is a defect report against the ODF 1.2 part 1 draft as well
as the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard, the ISO/IEC International Standard 26300:2006
for ODF 1.0 (and our OpenDocument-v1.0ed2-cs1 with the same substantive
content) and the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard.  As such, I don't think this should
be counted as a proposal for ODF 1.2 and there should be no problem with
discussion of this report and its recommendation under the standing rules as
amended last week.  

B. ALTERNATIVES NEED TO BE CONSIDERED

B.1. In all of the published ODF Standards and in the latest draft for ODF
1.2 part 1 (OpenDocument-v1.2-draft7-12.odt), including the separate schemas
and the in-line schemas (which I take to be normative), the 

Dennis,

you are right that my proposal resolves a defect. But the resolution of 
the defect may have an impact on existing applications, depending on 
whether their implementors took the schema as being correct or the 
description. For that reason, I think it is very reasonable to resolve 
this through a formal proposal and a formal decision by the TC.

Please note that this case differs from previous cases where we 
corrected spelling errors in the schema that where clearly identifiable 
as spelling errors, like a "right" that was spelled "rihgt".

There are of cause alternatives how the inconsistency can be checked, 
but I believe the current proposal is in so far balanced as it 
considered backward compatibility but also provides a consistent naming 
of attributes for the future.

Best regards

Michael



On 13.12.08 07:51, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> I have a few observations about the current proposal at
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Table-Protected (2008-12-10 edit).
> 
> I think we need to take this one on very carefully.  We certainly need more
> understanding of the impacts on current implementations and the consequences
> of any selected approach.
> 
> A. DEFECT REPORT, NOT FEATURE REQUEST
> 
> I believe this is a defect report against the ODF 1.2 part 1 draft as well
> as the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard, the ISO/IEC International Standard 26300:2006
> for ODF 1.0 (and our OpenDocument-v1.0ed2-cs1 with the same substantive
> content) and the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard.  As such, I don't think this should
> be counted as a proposal for ODF 1.2 and there should be no problem with
> discussion of this report and its recommendation under the standing rules as
> amended last week.  
> 
> B. ALTERNATIVES NEED TO BE CONSIDERED
> 
> B.1. In all of the published ODF Standards and in the latest draft for ODF
> 1.2 part 1 (OpenDocument-v1.2-draft7-12.odt), including the separate schemas
> and the in-line schemas (which I take to be normative), the 

In that case, my recommendation is as follows:

1. The schema for the