OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  Re: [office] the simple proposal

    Posted 07-14-2008 12:35
    Hi,
    
    I think the right thing to do is to:
    a) add the two "X" to ODF1.2
    b) add the two missing "X" to the ODF1.0/1.1 erata, since this is not a new feature, but an error in ODF1.0/1.1
    c) define what should happen if the combination is not valid in ODF1.2
    d) add an erata for ODF1.0/ODF1.1 to define what should happen if the combination is not valid
    
    Then we should start the more general discussion of what an application should do if it finds something "undefined",
    because: Whats the point of having a specification which has undefined behaviour.
    
    What we should *not* do IMHO is: Add the two "X" to ODF1.2 and leave it "undefined" for ODF1.0/1.1, since I believe its
    not a new feature in ODF1.2 but rather an error in ODF1.0/ODF1.1.
    
    Additionally we should spend at least a second reviewing the other combinations. It would be bad if we would find out in
    a couple of days that we need to chance it again..
    
    ~Florian
    
    
    >>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems 


  • 2.  Re: [office] the simple proposal

    Posted 07-14-2008 12:53
    Hi Florian,
    
    regarding an ODF 1.0 errata:
    
    When approving an errata, section 3.5 of the TC Process[1] requires that 
    we are
    
    "Confirming by Full Majority Vote that the proposed corrections do not 
    constitute a Substantive Change."
    
    where "substantive changes" are defined in section 1 as follows:
    
    ""Substantive Change" is a change to a specification that would require 
    a compliant application or implementation to be modified or rewritten in 
    order to remain compliant.".
    
    So, regardless whether we maybe should have allowed the attribute 
    combination in question already in ODF 1.0, we must include this 
    combination only if we believe that this does not require that any 
    existing implementation is changed. If we believe that existing 
    implementations must be changed, then we must not include the new 
    combination into an ODF 1.0 errata.
    
    Best regards
    
    Michael
    
    [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php
    
    
    Florian Reuter wrote:
    > Hi,
    > 
    > I think the right thing to do is to:
    > a) add the two "X" to ODF1.2
    > b) add the two missing "X" to the ODF1.0/1.1 erata, since this is not a new feature, but an error in ODF1.0/1.1
    > c) define what should happen if the combination is not valid in ODF1.2
    > d) add an erata for ODF1.0/ODF1.1 to define what should happen if the combination is not valid
    > 
    > Then we should start the more general discussion of what an application should do if it finds something "undefined",
    > because: Whats the point of having a specification which has undefined behaviour.
    > 
    > What we should *not* do IMHO is: Add the two "X" to ODF1.2 and leave it "undefined" for ODF1.0/1.1, since I believe its
    > not a new feature in ODF1.2 but rather an error in ODF1.0/ODF1.1.
    > 
    > Additionally we should spend at least a second reviewing the other combinations. It would be bad if we would find out in
    > a couple of days that we need to chance it again..
    > 
    > ~Florian
    > 
    > 
    >>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems