OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Re: Action Required: Committee Draft/Public Review voting

  • 1.  Re: Action Required: Committee Draft/Public Review voting

    Posted 05-30-2006 03:49 
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->



















    office message
    







    [Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]
    


    







    Subject: Re: Action Required: Committee Draft/Public Review voting
    







    



    Michael Brauer gently reminded us:
> This is a gentle reminder for our committee draft voting. Please note 
> that the ballot closes on Monday, and that Monday is a public holiday in 
> the US.
...
> > the committee draft/public review ballot is now open. Details how to 
> > vote are below. The ballot closes next Monday, 23:45 PT.
...
> > Should the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) 
> > 1.0 (Second Edition) Draft 29, located at
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/18351/office-spec-1.0-draft29.sxw 
> > be approved as committee draft, and should it be submitted for a public review?

I've walked through each of the changes, and after
evaluating them, I've voted "Yes".
Nice job, overall.  By doing a "compare documents" with the
earlier version it was easy to see the changes, which were straightforward,
and the changes made sense.

For the final release, I think OASIS should also release an ODF format version
of this (though check it to make sure the XML meets the spec).
It's odd to release a document format spec, and only use an
older nonstandard version of the spec.  If that can't happen asap,
at least get the process started so it'll be released soon afterwards
(say, when it gets to ISO or released by ISO).

I did find a few nits in the changes. They are trivial typos where
no meaning is in doubt, and thus they should NOT impede the process.
Still, if there's a way to address them in the process, or collect them in
an early errata, that'd be nice:
* In 6.2.8 under "Display", in the changes, "therefor" should be "therefore",
and "if the the path" should be "if the path".
* 6.5.5, the new "these attribute" should be "these attributes".
* 14.6.2, "as attribute of..." should "as an attribute of..."
* In appendix E, I'd note the emphasis on IRIs instead of URIs.
But that's  obviously unecessary, it's true anyway.

Thanks!

--- David A. Wheeler

    





    








    


    [Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]


Related Content