OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

  • 1.  Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 04-26-2022 23:03
    Dear ODF TC members   Following discussion on Monday’s call, Patrick and I have created thirteen batches of JIRA issues, the first five of which are being assigned herewith. Patrick has divided the issues into three groups – Extra-Large, Large and Small – according to the complexity/length of the changes involved.  I have made a largely-random selection of issues for each of the thirteen batches, with the hope that the amount of work required to review each batch is roughly similar. The first five batches have been assigned at random to Michael, Alfred, Andreas, Svante and Regina, as shown in the attached spreadsheet.   Please review the changes in the latest Working Drafts (WD02) of the Part 3 text and the schema . Further batches will be assigned on request when you have completed the review of the batch already assigned to you.   Please direct any queries to me or Patrick.   Kind regards,   Francis Attachment: Assignment of ODF1.4 Part 3 changes for review by ODF TC members.ods Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet


  • 2.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 04-27-2022 13:00
    The resolution of JIRA issue Office-3759 has not yet been applied to Parts 3, 4 and the schema. The attached spreadsheet is an update in which this issue is swapped for one from an unassigned batch – this affects the issues assigned to Alfred.   Francis       From: office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Francis Cave Sent: 27 April 2022 00:03 To: 'ODF TC List' <office@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02   Dear ODF TC members   Following discussion on Monday’s call, Patrick and I have created thirteen batches of JIRA issues, the first five of which are being assigned herewith. Patrick has divided the issues into three groups – Extra-Large, Large and Small – according to the complexity/length of the changes involved.  I have made a largely-random selection of issues for each of the thirteen batches, with the hope that the amount of work required to review each batch is roughly similar. The first five batches have been assigned at random to Michael, Alfred, Andreas, Svante and Regina, as shown in the attached spreadsheet.   Please review the changes in the latest Working Drafts (WD02) of the Part 3 text and the schema . Further batches will be assigned on request when you have completed the review of the batch already assigned to you.   Please direct any queries to me or Patrick.   Kind regards,   Francis Attachment: Assignment of ODF1.4 Part 3 changes for review by ODF TC members rev1.ods Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet


  • 3.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 04-28-2022 16:48
    Hi Francis, I have finished my first batch. Results: OFFICE-3846 =========== In 20.439 text:relative-tab-stop-position ----------------------------------------- The text contains line breaks instead of paragraph ends. The value description misses bullets. To make it a bullet list, you first need to use paragraph ends instead of line breaks. The texts 'fo:margin' and 'fo:margin-left' miss formatting with character style Attribute. Second 'Note:' paragraph has style 'Default Text', should be 'Note'. Because of this wrong style the indent is wrong. Appendix G is OK. In Relax-NG Schema ------------------ The change is missing. OFFICE-4072 =========== Text is OK but the changes are not listed in Appendix G. Relax-NG Schema is OK. OFFICE-4101 =========== Text and Appendix G are OK. Change to Relax-NG Schema is not needed. Francis Cave schrieb am 27.04.2022 um 01:02: Please review the changes in the latest Working Drafts (WD02) of the Part 3 text < https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/document.php?document_id=69855 > and the schema < https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/document.php?document_id=69857 >. The schema file has a wrong file name. Further batches will be assigned on request when you have completed the review of the batch already assigned to you. You can assign me a second batch. Kind regards Regina


  • 4.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 04-28-2022 18:26
    Hi Regina Comments inside, but in the meantime I'm happy to assign to you the next batch (6)! See attached revised spreadsheet. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 5.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-05-2022 13:03
    Hi Francis, Francis Cave schrieb am 28.04.2022 um 20:25: Hi Regina Comments inside, but in the meantime I'm happy to assign to you the next batch (6)! See attached revised spreadsheet. I have finished my second batch. Find my results below. Kind regards, Regina OFFICE-3936 =========== Section 17.22 ------------- nothing to do, only generated text is affected. Section 20.28 chart:interval-major ---------------------------------- The text 'chart:major-origin' (2 times) needs "Attribute" formatting. The formulas need a multiplication dot instead of the asterisk. In the formula editor of LibreOffice it is command 'cdot'. In all cases it needs to be verified, that the transformation to xhtml produces markup which let browsers produce the correct formula. To generate the correct formula it might be necessary to use grouping brackets {} in the formula editor of LibreOffice. 'Note' needs format style 'Note label'. New issues: The first occurrence of 'chart:major-origin' needs a link to its definition. The variable names x and w need to be italic in the text. That is not the case in the proposal. Some brackets are not needed in the formula. We should consider to omit them. Section 20.29 chart:interval-minor-divisor ------------------------------------------ Variable names a, b, m need to be italic in the text, several places, see proposal. Here too not an asterisk but a multiplication dot has to be used in the formulas. The part 'with' is outside the formula, so that you have to write two formulas instead one. Otherwise make sure, that the word 'with' is not italic. The ellipsis-sign ' ' is written as 'dotslow' in the formula editor of LibreOffice. New issues: The first occurrence of 'chart:minor-logarithmic' needs a link to its definition. That is missing in the proposal. Section 20.37 chart:major-origin --------------------------------- OK Section 20.38 chart:minor-logarithmic ------------------------------------- Format 'Attribute Value' is missing on word 'false'. Besides that, OK. Appendix G ---------- OK Schema ------ Comments with reference to OFFICE-4122 are missing. The attribute 'chart:minor-logarithmic' is missing. OFFICE-3685 =========== The current text in the wd02 is exactly same as has given in the issue resolution. It needs no change in schema. The entries in Appendix G are correct. New issue: 20.147 draw:marker-end-center has the sentence 'It is the default value.' at item 'false'. Such sentence is missing in 20.150 draw:marker-start-center. Is that intended or should we add the default value for marker-start-center too? OFFICE-4122 =========== The resolution field in the issue is empty. The resolution at 14 March 2022 was, "Resolution - take current datatype of percent and say non-negative value in the text - by consent" The text for "non-negative" is missing in the text. An item in Appendix G is missing. The schema misses a comment, that the change belongs to issue 4122. The change itself is correct.


  • 6.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-05-2022 17:03
    Hi Regina Thank you very much! I m not in my office today, but tomorrow (probably fairly late) I ll confirm the batch for you to look at next, if you have time. Kind regards, Francis Sent from my iPhone > On 5 May 2022, at 14:23, Regina Henschel <regina.henschel@libreoffice.org> wrote: > > ïHi Francis, > > Francis Cave schrieb am 28.04.2022 um 20:25: >> Hi Regina >> Comments inside, but in the meantime I'm happy to assign to you the next batch (6)! See attached revised spreadsheet. > > I have finished my second batch. Find my results below. > > Kind regards, > Regina > > > OFFICE-3936 > =========== > > Section 17.22 > ------------- > nothing to do, only generated text is affected. > > Section 20.28 chart:interval-major > ---------------------------------- > The text 'chart:major-origin' (2 times) needs "Attribute" formatting. > > The formulas need a multiplication dot instead of the asterisk. In the formula editor of LibreOffice it is command 'cdot'. In all cases it needs to be verified, that the transformation to xhtml produces markup which let browsers produce the correct formula. To generate the correct formula it might be necessary to use grouping brackets {} in the formula editor of LibreOffice. > > 'Note' needs format style 'Note label'. > > New issues: > The first occurrence of 'chart:major-origin' needs a link to its definition. > The variable names x and w need to be italic in the text. That is not the case in the proposal. > Some brackets are not needed in the formula. We should consider to omit them. > > Section 20.29 chart:interval-minor-divisor > ------------------------------------------ > Variable names a, b, m need to be italic in the text, several places, see proposal. > Here too not an asterisk but a multiplication dot has to be used in the formulas. > The part 'with' is outside the formula, so that you have to write two formulas instead one. Otherwise make sure, that the word 'with' is not italic. The ellipsis-sign ' ' is written as 'dotslow' in the formula editor of LibreOffice. > > New issues: > The first occurrence of 'chart:minor-logarithmic' needs a link to its definition. That is missing in the proposal. > > Section 20.37 chart:major-origin > --------------------------------- > OK > > Section 20.38 chart:minor-logarithmic > ------------------------------------- > Format 'Attribute Value' is missing on word 'false'. Besides that, OK. > > > Appendix G > ---------- > OK > > > Schema > ------ > Comments with reference to OFFICE-4122 are missing. > The attribute 'chart:minor-logarithmic' is missing. > > > OFFICE-3685 > =========== > The current text in the wd02 is exactly same as has given in the issue resolution. > It needs no change in schema. > The entries in Appendix G are correct. > > New issue: > 20.147 draw:marker-end-center has the sentence 'It is the default value.' at item 'false'. > Such sentence is missing in 20.150 draw:marker-start-center. Is that intended or should we add the default value for marker-start-center too? > > OFFICE-4122 > =========== > The resolution field in the issue is empty. > The resolution at 14 March 2022 was, "Resolution - take current datatype of percent and say non-negative value in the text - by consent" > > The text for "non-negative" is missing in the text. > An item in Appendix G is missing. > > The schema misses a comment, that the change belongs to issue 4122. > The change itself is correct.


  • 7.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-06-2022 17:24
    Hi Regina If/when you have time, please review batch 9 on the attached revised spreadsheet. Many thanks! Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 8.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-08-2022 17:30
    Hi Francis, Francis Cave schrieb am 06.05.2022 um 19:24: Hi Regina If/when you have time, please review batch 9 on the attached revised spreadsheet. Many thanks! OASIS-4119 =========== Issue resolution field: OK Changes in text: OK Appendix G: Item 19.882.12 <text:index-entry-link-end> is missing. Schema is not affected. OASIS-4102 ========== all OK OASIS-3751 ========== Issue resolution field: Should have a text like "Change in schema as proposed". Changes in text: OK Appendix G: OK Schema: OK OASIS-3816 ========== Issue resolution field is empty. Changes in text: OK Appendix G: OK Schema is not affected. Kind regards, Regina


  • 9.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-08-2022 21:05
    Hi Regina Thank you for your quick work! Although it isn't specifically on the agenda for tomorrow's TC call, I think I'll await the outcome of any comments about the review process in tomorrow's call, before allocating any more of the batches. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 10.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-09-2022 12:24
    Hi Francis, Hi Patrick, I have finished my batch. There were three steps I took for review in general as my "fix-review-pattern": A) Is the schema correctly changed (optional) B) Is the text of the resolution within the draft of the specification. C) Is the Issue mentioned in the Appendix. In addition to Schema Review A), I compared once the overall draft RNG with the one from ODF 1.3, if the issue# exists for all changes the issue# is written ahead of the changes Starting with the latter full review of schema A) Schema Review - Full RNG Comparison =================================== General remarks on the RNG changes, I did a comparison between the WD and ODF 1.3 release. I guess Michael & Regina have already mentioned some before, just for completeness: 1) Issue after change in Line 2788 Office-3759 2) Without issue no line 4907: <rng:attribute name="draw:extrusion-specularity"> <rng:ref name="percent"/> </rng:attribute> 3) Without issue no line 12226: <rng:optional> <rng:attribute name="style:margin-gutter"> <rng:ref name="nonNegativeLength"/> </rng:attribute> </rng:optional> 4) Last line too much: <!-- Office-4108 --> <rng:zeroOrMore> <rng:ref name="number-num-list-format"/> </rng:zeroOrMore> <rng:zeroOrMore> OFFICE-4105 =========== A) Review of Schema Change Comment of issue numbers is missing in schema change (line# 12226). (BTW this issue was not listed in issue review spreadsheet as schema change!) B) Review of Specification Changes: in 19.511 style:page-usage a) Attribute Value character style should be used for the attribute values at the beginning of the list in the later paragraphs and tables b) Formatting of Chapter# 19.511 after the list seems odd. in 20.322 style:margin-gutter a) Wrong formatting in the beginning. b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0." C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-4073 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes Schema change looks fine! B) Review of Specification Changes a) Page-content-bottom: vertical position ... ^^The value starts with a minor "p" not "P". b) Above value should have the attribute-value character style! c) The new value should be listed as well in the last box starting with: "The values of the style:vertical-rel attribute are" (was not part of the proposal but needs to be added!) C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-4033 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes No Schema change was necessary! B) Review of Specification Changes: Changes in the spec are according to our resolution: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-4033 C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! Kind regards, Svante Am So., 8. Mai 2022 um 23:05 Uhr schrieb Francis Cave < francis@franciscave.com >: Hi Regina Thank you for your quick work! Although it isn't specifically on the agenda for tomorrow's TC call, I think I'll await the outcome of any comments about the review process in tomorrow's call, before allocating any more of the batches. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 11.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-09-2022 16:48
    Hi Svante, hi Regina   Thank you both for your latest reviews. Regina, I have taken the liberty of assigning another batch to you (batch 11), as well as one to Svante (batch 10). See attached spreadsheet.   Kind regards,   Francis       From: office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Svante Schubert Sent: 09 May 2022 13:24 To: Francis Cave <francis@franciscave.com>; Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> Cc: Regina Henschel <regina.henschel@libreoffice.org>; ODF TC List <office@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02   Hi Francis, Hi Patrick, I have finished my batch. There were three steps I took for review in general as my "fix-review-pattern": A) Is the schema correctly changed (optional) B) Is the text of the resolution within the draft of the specification.    C) Is the Issue mentioned in the Appendix. In addition to Schema Review A), I compared once the overall draft RNG with the one from ODF 1.3, if the issue# exists for all changes the issue# is written ahead of the changes Starting with the latter full review of schema A) Schema Review - Full RNG Comparison =================================== General remarks on the RNG changes, I did a comparison between the WD and ODF 1.3 release. I guess Michael & Regina have already mentioned some before, just for completeness: 1) Issue after change in Line 2788 Office-3759 2) Without issue no line 4907:         <rng:attribute name="draw:extrusion-specularity">           <rng:ref name="percent"/>         </rng:attribute> 3) Without issue no line 12226:       <rng:optional>         <rng:attribute name="style:margin-gutter">          <rng:ref name="nonNegativeLength"/>         </rng:attribute>       </rng:optional> 4) Last line too much:       <!-- Office-4108 -->       <rng:zeroOrMore>         <rng:ref name="number-num-list-format"/>       </rng:zeroOrMore>        <rng:zeroOrMore> OFFICE-4105 =========== A) Review of Schema Change Comment of issue numbers is missing in schema change (line# 12226).  (BTW this issue was not listed in issue review spreadsheet as schema change!) B) Review of Specification Changes: in 19.511 style:page-usage a) Attribute Value character style should be used for the attribute values at the beginning of the list in the later paragraphs and tables b) Formatting of Chapter# 19.511 after the list seems odd. in 20.322 style:margin-gutter a) Wrong formatting in the beginning. b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0."   C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-4073 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes Schema change looks fine!       B) Review of Specification Changes a) Page-content-bottom: vertical position ...     ^^The value starts with a minor "p" not "P". b) Above value should have the attribute-value character style!       c) The new value should be listed as well in the last box starting with:         "The values of the style:vertical-rel attribute are"         (was not part of the proposal but needs to be added!)         C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix!         OFFICE-4033 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes No Schema change was necessary! B) Review of Specification Changes: Changes in the spec are according to our resolution:     https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-4033     C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix!   Kind regards, Svante   Am So., 8. Mai 2022 um 23:05 Uhr schrieb Francis Cave < francis@franciscave.com >: Hi Regina Thank you for your quick work! Although it isn't specifically on the agenda for tomorrow's TC call, I think I'll await the outcome of any comments about the review process in tomorrow's call, before allocating any more of the batches. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 12.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-09-2022 21:04
    Svante Schubert < svante.schubert@gmail.com > 14:23 (vor 6 Stunden) an Patrick ; Francis ; Regina ; ODF Hi Francis, Hi Patrick, I have finished again my batch (and no thanks, no time for another batch atm)... :-) I reordered and improved my review steps this time. Perhaps/Hopefully, the other reviewers might improve their handling and give feedback as well! A) Checking if the Issue is mentioned correctly in the Appendix by searching for the bug number (no editorial issues should be listed). I suggest to every reviewer to click on the heading reference, as one issue pointed to the wrong occurrence! B) Is the text of the resolution within the draft of the specification. If there is no resolution only a proposal I suggest raising a flag here. I find it an easy way to check the text to copy the JIRA text and the new text into two text files and make a text comparison. For testing the styles, I have a copy of the draft with all changes accepted making a style review easier. C) Is the schema correctly changed (only applies for XML schema changes) Search for the issue number in the draft RNG and compare it with the resolution of the issue In addition, I have applied our ODF "default value" extracting-tooling from our Git repository to the latest draft. The draft is not working correctly yet, but you might follow the items below to test it yourself: After cloning our ODF TC repository with Git from the command line: git clone https://github.com/oasis-tcs/odf-tc/ I changed to the root directory of our repo: cd odf-tc And build once the Java tooling to unzip an ODT file and extract the current default values by command-line calling the root directory the command: mvn clean install -Pdefault Note : The -Pdefault parameter is the Maven profile only triggering the XSLT of default extraction and building the Java tools but neglecting the HTML XSL transformation - saving some time. You may find the extracted values in the file: target/generated-resources/xml/xslt/content.odf14-default-values.xml (you may want to copy the file aside and rename it to compare later) The default values are equal to the one for ODF 1.3: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/odf-tc/blob/master/docs/odf1.3/content.odf13-default-values.xml Now I have downloaded the latest editor's draft into the repository as src/main/resources/odf1.4/OpenDocument-v1.4-part3-schema.odt Unzipped the ODT from the root directory using our Java tooling: java -cp target est-classes org.oasis_open.odf_tc.Unzip srcmain
    esourcesodf1.4OpenDocument-v1.4-part3-schema.odt You may see the changed ODF XML files via git: git status -sb Extracted the default values again now for the latest editor's draft: mvn clean install - Pdefault Compared the new default file: target/generated-resources/xml/xslt/content.odf14-default-values.xml with the one I copied aside (on Windows I mostly use TotalCommander for text compare). By this we can see that currently there is only one new line with a missing default value: <attribute name="style:page-usage" defaultValue=""/> In the following the review of issues: OFFICE-4047 =========== A) Review of Appendix Entry The issue was mentioned in the appendix with the correct reference to the changed heading. B) Review of Specification Changes with Issue Resolution The paragraph with the text: "The default value for the attribute draw:allow-overlap is true." uses "Default Paragraph Style" but has to use the "Default Value" as paragraph style. (just a repetitive error of what was mentioned earlier today) C) Review of Schema Change Schema changes are correct in the current RNG draft wd-02 starting at line 11013. OFFICE-4088 =========== This issue with some typos is about part 2 (package) but I could not find a recent upload for part 2 at https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/documents.php?wg_abbrev=office&show_descriptions=yes At least in part 3, there is not a single occurrence of "implementation defined" :-) OFFICE-4092 =========== A) Review of Appendix Entry The issue is mentioned in the appendix but does refer to the wrong heading! B) Review of Specification Changes with Issue Resolution There is no resolution only a proposal on the JIRA issue. But the proposal is identical to the changed specification text. C) Review of Schema Change (no schema changes within the issue) OFFICE-4104 =========== A) Review of Appendix Entry The issue is mentioned in the appendix and refers to the correct heading! B) Review of Specification Changes with Issue Resolution There is no resolution only a proposal on the JIRA issue. The proposal is to switch "true" and "false" - the fix seems not to apply. C) Review of Schema Change (no schema changes within the issue) Regards, Svante Am Mo., 9. Mai 2022 um 18:48 Uhr schrieb Francis Cave < francis@franciscave.com >: Hi Svante, hi Regina Thank you both for your latest reviews. Regina, I have taken the liberty of assigning another batch to you (batch 11), as well as one to Svante (batch 10). See attached spreadsheet. Kind regards, Francis From: office@lists.oasis-open.org < office@lists.oasis-open.org > On Behalf Of Svante Schubert Sent: 09 May 2022 13:24 To: Francis Cave < francis@franciscave.com >; Patrick Durusau < patrick@durusau.net > Cc: Regina Henschel < regina.henschel@libreoffice.org >; ODF TC List < office@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02 Hi Francis, Hi Patrick, I have finished my batch. There were three steps I took for review in general as my "fix-review-pattern": A) Is the schema correctly changed (optional) B) Is the text of the resolution within the draft of the specification. C) Is the Issue mentioned in the Appendix. In addition to Schema Review A), I compared once the overall draft RNG with the one from ODF 1.3, if the issue# exists for all changes the issue# is written ahead of the changes Starting with the latter full review of schema A) Schema Review - Full RNG Comparison =================================== General remarks on the RNG changes, I did a comparison between the WD and ODF 1.3 release. I guess Michael & Regina have already mentioned some before, just for completeness: 1) Issue after change in Line 2788 Office-3759 2) Without issue no line 4907: <rng:attribute name="draw:extrusion-specularity"> <rng:ref name="percent"/> </rng:attribute> 3) Without issue no line 12226: <rng:optional> <rng:attribute name="style:margin-gutter"> <rng:ref name="nonNegativeLength"/> </rng:attribute> </rng:optional> 4) Last line too much: <!-- Office-4108 --> <rng:zeroOrMore> <rng:ref name="number-num-list-format"/> </rng:zeroOrMore> <rng:zeroOrMore> OFFICE-4105 =========== A) Review of Schema Change Comment of issue numbers is missing in schema change (line# 12226). (BTW this issue was not listed in issue review spreadsheet as schema change!) B) Review of Specification Changes: in 19.511 style:page-usage a) Attribute Value character style should be used for the attribute values at the beginning of the list in the later paragraphs and tables b) Formatting of Chapter# 19.511 after the list seems odd. in 20.322 style:margin-gutter a) Wrong formatting in the beginning. b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0." C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-4073 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes Schema change looks fine! B) Review of Specification Changes a) Page-content-bottom: vertical position ... ^^The value starts with a minor "p" not "P". b) Above value should have the attribute-value character style! c) The new value should be listed as well in the last box starting with: "The values of the style:vertical-rel attribute are" (was not part of the proposal but needs to be added!) C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-4033 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes No Schema change was necessary! B) Review of Specification Changes: Changes in the spec are according to our resolution: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-4033 C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! Kind regards, Svante Am So., 8. Mai 2022 um 23:05 Uhr schrieb Francis Cave < francis@franciscave.com >: Hi Regina Thank you for your quick work! Although it isn't specifically on the agenda for tomorrow's TC call, I think I'll await the outcome of any comments about the review process in tomorrow's call, before allocating any more of the batches. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 13.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-10-2022 17:41
    Hi Francis, find my results below. Kind regards, Regina Francis Cave schrieb am 09.05.2022 um 18:48: Hi Svante, hi Regina Thank you both for your latest reviews. Regina, I have taken the liberty of assigning another batch to you (batch 11), as well as one to Svante (batch 10). See attached spreadsheet. OASIS-4106 ========== Resolution in issue: Field is empty. Appendix G: OK Changes in text: OK Schema: change is in wrong place. It should be in <rng:define name="style-graphic-fill-properties-attlist"> line 10931. In case we want the new value for style:repeat of an <style:background-image> (17.3) too, we should reopen the issue. The current resolution is for style:repeat in elements <style:draw-page-properties> (17.25) and <style:graphic-properties> (17.21). OASIS-4118 ========== Resolution in issue: Field is empty. Here the field must be filled because the comments end with a question. Appendix G: OK Changes in text: Not applicable, change is in generated content. Schema: OK OASIS-3022 ========== Resolution in issue: Field is empty. Appendix G: OK Changes in text: Not applicable, change is in generated content. Schema: Change is totally missing, should be inside <rng:element name="draw:page">, line 5596 OASIS-4023 ========== Resolution in issue: OK Appendix G: OK Changes in text: The remark "(deprecated)" at the heading "10.8 Presentation Animations" is misleading because we still have <presentation:sound> in that section. But that will be the only sub-section after the others are removed. When they are actually removed, we should consider to make <presentation:sound> an independent section and indeed remove "10.8 Presention Animations". The "(deprecated)" remark is missing on 10.8.3 <presentation:show-shape>. All other changes are OK. Schema: Not applicable, changes are only needed in text.


  • 14.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-11-2022 00:06
    Hi Regina Thank you again! If you have time to do any more review work, there are only two unallocated batches remaining: batches 12 and 13, and these all relate to small issues. I'd be really happy for you to review these, but I shall quite understand if you decide to prioritise other activities! Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 15.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-12-2022 13:04
    Hi Francis, Francis Cave schrieb am 11.05.2022 um 02:06: Hi Regina Thank you again! If you have time to do any more review work, there are only two unallocated batches remaining: batches 12 and 13, and these all relate to small issues. I'd be really happy for you to review these, but I shall quite understand if you decide to prioritise other activities! I take batch 12. Kind regards, Regina


  • 16.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-12-2022 13:25
    Thank you, Regina. Michael, would you be able to review batch 13? Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 17.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-12-2022 15:27
    Hi Francis, find my results on batch 12 below. I take batch 13 now. Kind regards, Regina OASIS-3759 ========== Resolution field in issue: OK Appendix G: Entry is missing Text: The change is missing. The new value should be listed in "Table 14 - Value attributes" in "19.390 office:value-type". Schema: Comment with issue number is missing. OASIS-4086 ========== Resolution field in issue: Resolution is missing. Appendix G: The link has description text "20.440". That text should not be there, but the link should be directly on the text "D1", "D11" and "D2", respectively. The link target itself is OK. Text: OK Schema: not applicable OASIS-4093 ========== Resolution field in issue: OK Appendix G: OK Text: OK Schema: not applicable OASIS-3953 ========== Resolution field in issue: Resolution is missing. Appendix G: OK Text: not needed, generated content Schema: Change is totally missing.


  • 18.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-12-2022 15:34
    Thanks, Regina! Michael, you're off the hook on batch 13! Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 19.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-12-2022 16:38
    Hi Francis, batch 13 was indeed a short one. Find results below. Kind regards, Regina OASIS-4025 ========== Resolution field in issue: OK Appendix G: OK Text: OK Schema: not applicable OASIS-2390 ========== Resolution field in issue: Resolution is missing. The mentioned minutes do not contain a resolution. Reopen needed? Appendix G: OK Text: OK Schema: not applicable OASIS-4103 ========== Resolution field in issue: OK Appendix G: OK Text: OK Schema: not applicable OASIS-4035 ========== Resolution field in issue: Resolution is missing. Appendix G: not applicable, schema only Text: not applicable, schema only Schema: tabs instead of spaces. Content is OK.


  • 20.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-14-2022 14:57
    Hi Regina I'm working backwards through reviewed batches of issues. Batch 13: Office-2390: I've added text in the Resolution field in JIRA. See ODF Chat notes for 13 August 2018: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/email/archives/201808/msg00033.html . Under OFFICE-2390: Patrick: Set to ODF 1.4, deprecate in ODF 1.4, mark as resolved. Office-4035: I've added text to the Resolution field in JIRA. Francis
    Original Message


  • 21.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-14-2022 15:20
    Hi Regina Office-3759: I agree that the Resolution has not been applied to either Part 3 (Table 14) or Part 4 (4.6 Error). The change has been made to the schema (lines 2768-2777), but the comment is in the wrong place (line 2788, at the end of the next rng:group). Office-4086: I've added text to the Resolution field in JIRA. I agree that the link text in Appendix G is incorrect on all the entries related to this issue. Office-3953: I've added text to the Resolution field in JIRA. I agree that the schema change has not been made. Francis
    Original Message


  • 22.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-14-2022 21:41
    Hi Regina Office-4106: I've added text to the Resolution field in JIRA. I agree that the change in the schema has been made in the wrong instance of style:repeat: lines 9744-9745, but should be between lines 10930 and 10931. Office-4118: I think that the Resolution field should be completed only after the question about the default value has been resolved, although my view is that the default value should always be specified in the section that describes the attribute, not the parent element, so 19.876.4 and 19.876.7 are the correct sections in which to specify the default values, not in 16.34 (<text:list-level-style-number>) or 16.37 (<text:outline-level-style>). Office-3022: I've added text to the Resolution field in JIRA. I agree that the schema change has not been made. Office-4023: I wonder whether it would make sense to move <presentation:sound> to 10.9 SMIL Presentation Animations, in which case the whole of 10.8 can be marked as deprecated. According to the proposal in the JIRA issue, the only reason for not deprecating <presentation:sound> appears to be because of its use in SMIL animations. Perhaps this should be discussed before adding anything to the Resolution field. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 23.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-15-2022 21:25
    OFFICE-4107 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes Schema change looks fine! Note that the current (2022-5-9) schema is invalid because of an extra <rng:zeroOrMore> on line 13792 (probably related to OFFICE-4108) B) Review of Specification Changes a) The applied specification change to 19.617 matches the resolution, but: The value window-font-color is described for the table:data-type value text-color only while the schema allows this value also for the table:data-type valuedata-style-color. Is that intended? b) The applied specification change to 19.690 matches the resolution, but do we really want on string or numeric, or color values rather than on string, numeric, or color values ? c) The applied specification change to 19.713 matches the resolution,but the formatting of teh two inserted or does not look correct. They are not part of the values. d) The table of content numbering is inconsistent with the numbering of the document, e.g. in the table of content the 19.617.2 <table:filter-condition> section has number 19.615.2. I assume that LO does not keep the table of content up to date, since there are also differences between the entry text and the headers of the corresponding section. C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-2949 =========== When I try accessing OFFICE-2949 I get punted to OFFICE-4127 as if OFFICE-2949 does not exist. OFFICE-4022 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes N/A B) Review of Specification Changes a) Specification is correctly updated C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue is not mentioned in the Appendix! I would think this is technically a change to an attribute. Andreas -- Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD FTICA Registrar & Associate Vice-President, Enrolment and Planning Professor, Mathematical & Computing Sciences Direct: +1 780 479 9290 Toll-Free: +1 866 479 5200 concordia.ab.ca


  • 24.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-15-2022 21:54
    Andreas, Thanks! Err, when I go to: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-2949 I get 10.3.12 <draw:measure> "has arrows at its endpoints"? Can you try again? Thanks! Patrick On 5/15/22 17:23, Andreas J Guelzow wrote: OFFICE-4107 =========== *A) Review of Schema Changes* Schema change looks fine! Note that the current (2022-5-9) schema is invalid because of an extra <rng:zeroOrMore> on line 13792 (probably related to OFFICE-4108) *B) Review of Specification Changes* a) The applied specification change to 19.617 matches the resolution, but: The value "window-font-color" is described for the table:data-type value text-color only while the schema allows this value also for the table:data-type valuedata-style-color. Is that intended? b) The applied specification change to 19.690 matches the resolution, but do we really want "on string or numeric, or color values" rather than "on string, numeric, or color values"? c) The applied specification change to 19.713 matches the resolution,but the formatting of teh two inserted "or" does not look correct. They are not part of the values. d) The table of content numbering is inconsistent with the numbering of the document, e.g. in the table of content the 19.617.2 <table:filter-condition> section has number 19.615.2. I assume that LO does not keep the table of content up to date, since there are also differences between the entry text and the headers of the corresponding section. *C) Review of Appendix Entry* Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-2949 =========== When I try accessing OFFICE-2949 I get punted to OFFICE-4127 as if OFFICE-2949 does not exist. OFFICE-4022 =========== *A) Review of Schema Changes* N/A *B) Review of Specification Changes* a) Specification is correctly updated * * *C) Review of Appendix Entry* Issue is not mentioned in the Appendix! I would think this is technically a change to an attribute. Andreas -- Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD FTICA < mailto:andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca > Registrar & Associate Vice-President, Enrolment and Planning Professor, Mathematical & Computing Sciences Direct: +1 780 479 9290 Toll-Free: +1 866 479 5200 Concordia University of Edmonton < http://concordia.ab.ca/ > concordia.ab.ca < http://concordia.ab.ca/ > Concordia University of Edmonton Twitter < http://twitter.com/CUEdmonton > Concordia University of Edmonton Instagram < http://instagram.com/cuedmonton/ > Concordia University of Edmonton Facebook < http://facebook.com/CUEdmonton > -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau Attachment: OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature


  • 25.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-16-2022 01:13
    OFFICE-2949 =========== I guess that since I was logged in and had a filter open that did not include this item, it just jumped instead to the first item in the filter. Being logged out, going to the item and them logging in seems to work fine. A) Review of Schema Changes OFFICE-2949 has Component/s: Graphics, Part 1 (Schema) but I see no associated schema changes in the JIRA item. B) Review of Specification Changes a) The specification changes appear to be correctly applied C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! Andreas -- Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD FTICA Registrar & Associate Vice-President, Enrolment and Planning Professor, Mathematical & Computing Sciences Direct: +1 780 479 9290 Toll-Free: +1 866 479 5200 concordia.ab.ca


  • 26.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:43
    hi Andreas, On 16.05.22 03:11, Andreas J Guelzow wrote: *A) Review of Schema Changes* OFFICE-2949 has Component/s: Graphics, Part 1 (Schema) but I see no associated schema changes in the JIRA item. it just means that it applies to the part of the specification that describes the content.xml/styles.xml markup, somehow that part is named "Schema" in JIRA, but it doesn't imply that the issue changes the schema. oh, apparently its title on page 1 is "Part 3: OpenDocument Schema"; odd that i'm surprised by this :) regards, michael -- Michael Stahl Senior Software-Entwickler LibreOffice allotropia software GmbH Flachsland 10 22083 Hamburg Germany michael.stahl@allotropia.de https://www.allotropia.de Registered office: Hamburg, Germany Registration court Hamburg, HRB 165405 Managing director: Thorsten Behrens VAT-ID: DE 335606919


  • 27.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-09-2022 19:37
    > b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0." Sorry, I made a mistake here: The "Default Value" style is a paragraph style and has to be used for the paragraph containing the default value, not for the value itself (for instance in LibreOffice you may search for the "Default Value" paragraph style). Am Mo., 9. Mai 2022 um 14:23 Uhr schrieb Svante Schubert < svante.schubert@gmail.com >: Hi Francis, Hi Patrick, I have finished my batch. There were three steps I took for review in general as my "fix-review-pattern": A) Is the schema correctly changed (optional) B) Is the text of the resolution within the draft of the specification. C) Is the Issue mentioned in the Appendix. In addition to Schema Review A), I compared once the overall draft RNG with the one from ODF 1.3, if the issue# exists for all changes the issue# is written ahead of the changes Starting with the latter full review of schema A) Schema Review - Full RNG Comparison =================================== General remarks on the RNG changes, I did a comparison between the WD and ODF 1.3 release. I guess Michael & Regina have already mentioned some before, just for completeness: 1) Issue after change in Line 2788 Office-3759 2) Without issue no line 4907: <rng:attribute name="draw:extrusion-specularity"> <rng:ref name="percent"/> </rng:attribute> 3) Without issue no line 12226: <rng:optional> <rng:attribute name="style:margin-gutter"> <rng:ref name="nonNegativeLength"/> </rng:attribute> </rng:optional> 4) Last line too much: <!-- Office-4108 --> <rng:zeroOrMore> <rng:ref name="number-num-list-format"/> </rng:zeroOrMore> <rng:zeroOrMore> OFFICE-4105 =========== A) Review of Schema Change Comment of issue numbers is missing in schema change (line# 12226). (BTW this issue was not listed in issue review spreadsheet as schema change!) B) Review of Specification Changes: in 19.511 style:page-usage a) Attribute Value character style should be used for the attribute values at the beginning of the list in the later paragraphs and tables b) Formatting of Chapter# 19.511 after the list seems odd. in 20.322 style:margin-gutter a) Wrong formatting in the beginning. b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0." C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-4073 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes Schema change looks fine! B) Review of Specification Changes a) Page-content-bottom: vertical position ... ^^The value starts with a minor "p" not "P". b) Above value should have the attribute-value character style! c) The new value should be listed as well in the last box starting with: "The values of the style:vertical-rel attribute are" (was not part of the proposal but needs to be added!) C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-4033 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes No Schema change was necessary! B) Review of Specification Changes: Changes in the spec are according to our resolution: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-4033 C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! Kind regards, Svante Am So., 8. Mai 2022 um 23:05 Uhr schrieb Francis Cave < francis@franciscave.com >: Hi Regina Thank you for your quick work! Although it isn't specifically on the agenda for tomorrow's TC call, I think I'll await the outcome of any comments about the review process in tomorrow's call, before allocating any more of the batches. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 28.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-09-2022 20:25
    Hi Svante   I m proposing that I (or Patrick, but best not to check our own work) check the styling of all tracked changes before we accept any of them to create a Committee Specification Draft, but I suggest that we do this after all the tracked changes for ODF 1.4 have been made, as we can resolve the other editorial issues that have been logged in GitHub at the same time.   But you re right about the styling of default value paragraphs: the paragraph style should be Default Value , and the text style for the actual value ( 0 in this instance) should be Attribute Value .   Kind regards,   Francis       From: office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Svante Schubert Sent: 09 May 2022 20:37 To: Francis Cave <francis@franciscave.com>; Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> Cc: ODF TC List <office@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02   > b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0."   Sorry, I made a mistake here: The "Default Value" style is a paragraph style and has to be used for the paragraph containing the default value, not for the value itself (for instance in LibreOffice you may search for the "Default Value" paragraph style).     Am Mo., 9. Mai 2022 um 14:23 Uhr schrieb Svante Schubert < svante.schubert@gmail.com >: Hi Francis, Hi Patrick, I have finished my batch. There were three steps I took for review in general as my "fix-review-pattern": A) Is the schema correctly changed (optional) B) Is the text of the resolution within the draft of the specification.    C) Is the Issue mentioned in the Appendix. In addition to Schema Review A), I compared once the overall draft RNG with the one from ODF 1.3, if the issue# exists for all changes the issue# is written ahead of the changes Starting with the latter full review of schema A) Schema Review - Full RNG Comparison =================================== General remarks on the RNG changes, I did a comparison between the WD and ODF 1.3 release. I guess Michael & Regina have already mentioned some before, just for completeness: 1) Issue after change in Line 2788 Office-3759 2) Without issue no line 4907:         <rng:attribute name="draw:extrusion-specularity">           <rng:ref name="percent"/>         </rng:attribute> 3) Without issue no line 12226:       <rng:optional>         <rng:attribute name="style:margin-gutter">          <rng:ref name="nonNegativeLength"/>         </rng:attribute>       </rng:optional> 4) Last line too much:       <!-- Office-4108 -->       <rng:zeroOrMore>         <rng:ref name="number-num-list-format"/>       </rng:zeroOrMore>        <rng:zeroOrMore> OFFICE-4105 =========== A) Review of Schema Change Comment of issue numbers is missing in schema change (line# 12226).  (BTW this issue was not listed in issue review spreadsheet as schema change!) B) Review of Specification Changes: in 19.511 style:page-usage a) Attribute Value character style should be used for the attribute values at the beginning of the list in the later paragraphs and tables b) Formatting of Chapter# 19.511 after the list seems odd. in 20.322 style:margin-gutter a) Wrong formatting in the beginning. b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0."   C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-4073 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes Schema change looks fine!       B) Review of Specification Changes a) Page-content-bottom: vertical position ...     ^^The value starts with a minor "p" not "P". b) Above value should have the attribute-value character style!       c) The new value should be listed as well in the last box starting with:         "The values of the style:vertical-rel attribute are"         (was not part of the proposal but needs to be added!)         C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix!         OFFICE-4033 =========== A) Review of Schema Changes No Schema change was necessary! B) Review of Specification Changes: Changes in the spec are according to our resolution:     https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-4033     C) Review of Appendix Entry Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix!   Kind regards, Svante   Am So., 8. Mai 2022 um 23:05 Uhr schrieb Francis Cave < francis@franciscave.com >: Hi Regina Thank you for your quick work! Although it isn't specifically on the agenda for tomorrow's TC call, I think I'll await the outcome of any comments about the review process in tomorrow's call, before allocating any more of the batches. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 29.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-09-2022 20:27
    Yes! I think the language is uniform enough that checking styles on phrases / words may help. Certainly every element/attribute name should always have the correct style. Patrick On 5/9/22 16:25, Francis Cave wrote: Hi Svante I m proposing that I (or Patrick, but best not to check our own work) check the styling of all tracked changes before we accept any of them to create a Committee Specification Draft, but I suggest that we do this after all the tracked changes for ODF 1.4 have been made, as we can resolve the other editorial issues that have been logged in GitHub at the same time. But you re right about the styling of default value paragraphs: the paragraph style should be Default Value , and the text style for the actual value ( 0 in this instance) should be Attribute Value . Kind regards, Francis *From:*office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> *On Behalf Of *Svante Schubert *Sent:* 09 May 2022 20:37 *To:* Francis Cave <francis@franciscave.com>; Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> *Cc:* ODF TC List <office@lists.oasis-open.org> *Subject:* Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02 > b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0." Sorry, I made a mistake here: The "Default Value" style is a paragraph style and has to be used for the paragraph containing the default value, not for the value itself (for instance in LibreOffice you may search for the "Default Value" paragraph style). Am Mo., 9. Mai 2022 um 14:23 Uhr schrieb Svante Schubert <svante.schubert@gmail.com>: Hi Francis, Hi Patrick, I have finished my batch. There were three steps I took for review in general as my "fix-review-pattern": *A) *Is the schema correctly changed (optional) *B)* Is the text of the resolution within the draft of the specification. *C)* Is the Issue mentioned in the Appendix. In addition to Schema Review A), I compared once the overall draft RNG with the one from ODF 1.3, if * the issue# exists for all changes * the issue# is written ahead of the changes Starting with the latter full review of schema *A) Schema Review* *- Full RNG Comparison* =================================== General remarks on the RNG changes, I did a comparison between the WD and ODF 1.3 release. I guess Michael & Regina have already mentioned some before, just for completeness: 1) Issue after change in Line 2788 Office-3759 2) Without issue no line 4907: <rng:attribute name="draw:extrusion-specularity"> <rng:ref name="percent"/> </rng:attribute> 3) Without issue no line 12226: <rng:optional> <rng:attribute name="style:margin-gutter"> <rng:ref name="nonNegativeLength"/> </rng:attribute> </rng:optional> 4) Last line too much: <!-- Office-4108 --> <rng:zeroOrMore> <rng:ref name="number-num-list-format"/> </rng:zeroOrMore> <rng:zeroOrMore> OFFICE-4105 =========== *A) Review of Schema Change* Comment of issue numbers is missing in schema change (line# 12226). (BTW this issue was not listed in issue review spreadsheet as schema change!) *B) Review of Specification Changes: * in 19.511 style:page-usage a) Attribute Value character style should be used for the attribute values * at the beginning of the list * in the later paragraphs and tables b) Formatting of Chapter# 19.511 after the list seems odd. in 20.322 style:margin-gutter a) Wrong formatting in the beginning. b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0." *C) Review of Appendix Entry* Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-4073 =========== *A) Review of Schema Changes* Schema change looks fine! *B) Review of Specification Changes* a) Page-content-bottom: vertical position ... ^^The value starts with a minor "p" not "P". b) Above value should have the attribute-value character style! c) The new value should be listed as well in the last box starting with: "The values of the style:vertical-rel attribute are" (was not part of the proposal but needs to be added!) *C) Review of Appendix Entry* Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! OFFICE-4033 =========== *A) Review of Schema Changes* No Schema change was necessary! *B) Review of Specification Changes:* Changes in the spec are according to our resolution: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-4033 *C) Review of Appendix Entry* Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix! Kind regards, Svante Am So., 8. Mai 2022 um 23:05 Uhr schrieb Francis Cave <francis@franciscave.com>: Hi Regina Thank you for your quick work! Although it isn't specifically on the agenda for tomorrow's TC call, I think I'll await the outcome of any comments about the review process in tomorrow's call, before allocating any more of the batches. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 30.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-02-2022 16:40
    hi all, i've reviewed first batch of issues: OFFICE-3997 - " See 7.15.4 of [XSL]." - there is a spurious space at the start (pre-existing problem). - when hiding the tracked changes, there is an empty bullet paragraph; this can be fixed by putting the cursor at the start of the inserted text an pressing backspace. - "fo:line-height" has character style "Teletype" - should be "Attribute"? - "percent", "nonNegativeLength" have character style "Teletype" - should be "Datatype"? - "fo:line-height" has character style "Teletype" - should be "Attribute"? - "inherit", "number", "space" have character style "Teletype" - should be "Attribute Value"? - "normal" has character style "Teletype" - should be "Attribute Value"? - "a value of type percent" - this is all character style "Teletype", but only the word "percent" should be character style "Datatype". - "nonNegativeLength" has character style "Teletype" - should be "Datatype"? - "It is implementation-dependent, whether" - the comma isn't needed? - the paragraph ends with a line break - either superfluous or should be paragraph break? - "fo:line-height 20.207" - this is inside that very section, does it need to reference itself? - "Note:" - should have character style "Note Label"; also the paragraph should have style "Note" - Appendix G has this line, but it's not clear what was changed for this issue? "<style:paragraph-properties> 17.6 Office3997" OFFICE-4027 looks okay, except that an entry in Appendix G is missing. OFFICE-3005 looks okay. regards, michael On 27.04.22 01:02, Francis Cave wrote: Dear ODF TC members Following discussion on Monday s call, Patrick and I have created thirteen batches of JIRA issues, the first five of which are being assigned herewith. Patrick has divided the issues into three groups Extra-Large, Large and Small according to the complexity/length of the changes involved. I have made a largely-random selection of issues for each of the thirteen batches, with the hope that the amount of work required to review each batch is roughly similar. The first five batches have been assigned at random to Michael, Alfred, Andreas, Svante and Regina, as shown in the attached spreadsheet. Please review the changes in the latest Working Drafts (WD02) of the Part 3 text < https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/document.php?document_id=69855 > and the schema < https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/document.php?document_id=69857 >. Further batches will be assigned on request when you have completed the review of the batch already assigned to you. Please direct any queries to me or Patrick. Kind regards, Francis -- Michael Stahl Senior Software-Entwickler LibreOffice allotropia software GmbH Flachsland 10 22083 Hamburg Germany michael.stahl@allotropia.de https://www.allotropia.de Registered office: Hamburg, Germany Registration court Hamburg, HRB 165405 Managing director: Thorsten Behrens VAT-ID: DE 335606919


  • 31.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-02-2022 19:17
    Hi Michael Thanks. I've assigned you a second batch in the attached revised spreadsheet. I only have two remarks relating to your comments/queries: Regarding use of the text style 'Teletype', I believe that this is a built-in style in LO and possibly in other ODF editor apps. I don't think it should be used anywhere in the specification. As a legacy of ODF 1.3, there are a couple of instances in Part 3 and three instances in Part 4, which I expect will all be fixed as part of an editorial sweep-up after all the issue-related changes have been made. All the replacement styles that you suggest look correct to me. I'd suggest "It is implementation-dependent whether...", i.e. without the comma, for consistency with 13.5.3 and 19.265, and with "implementation-defined whether" in 19.716, 20.179, 20.180, 20.181, 20.182 and 20.233. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 32.  Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-11-2022 17:57
    hi all, i've reviewed some more: OFFICE-3710, OFFICE-4027 * T has "The point of the ellipse, which" - extraneous comma * T also has "see figure nnn." but there is no figure and "nnn" looks a placeholder (but this was added by some other issue presumably) OFFICE-3761 the schema change looks good, except that all changes in the schema appear to be indented with tabs, while all the pre-existing schema is indented with spaces. OFFICE-4029 ok. regards, michael On 02.05.22 21:16, Francis Cave wrote: Hi Michael Thanks. I've assigned you a second batch in the attached revised spreadsheet. I only have two remarks relating to your comments/queries: Regarding use of the text style 'Teletype', I believe that this is a built-in style in LO and possibly in other ODF editor apps. I don't think it should be used anywhere in the specification. As a legacy of ODF 1.3, there are a couple of instances in Part 3 and three instances in Part 4, which I expect will all be fixed as part of an editorial sweep-up after all the issue-related changes have been made. All the replacement styles that you suggest look correct to me. I'd suggest "It is implementation-dependent whether...", i.e. without the comma, for consistency with 13.5.3 and 19.265, and with "implementation-defined whether" in 19.716, 20.179, 20.180, 20.181, 20.182 and 20.233. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


  • 33.  RE: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02

    Posted 05-11-2022 23:58
    Thanks, Michael. I think we should wait to see whether Regina is able to review the remaining two batches of issues, all of which concern only small changes in the text/schema. Kind regards, Francis
    Original Message


Related Content