OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

As part of compiling ODF 1.1 Errata 01, I will be making a change-marked version of the OASIS ODF 1.1 Specification, reflecting the change that is needed to reflect the ODF 1.0 Errata 02 plus the IS 26300 COR1, COR2, and AMD1 (where they have deviations we must anticipate). My intention is to use those change-markings as the basis for the individual ODF 1.1 Errata 01 instructions. I find this to be the most-reliable way to go about this. It strikes me that the final change-marked version, once there is clean alignment between ODF 1.1 + its errata and the amended IS 26300, will be a suitable basis for an ODF 1.1 (Second Edition) Committee Specification 01. It is not necessary to decide to do this, but I will conduct enough experiments as part of my start-up effort to confirm that it would work. If the confirmation is successful, I will maintain a progression of Working Drafts in that form so that we have the option if we choose to take it. (The "would work" part has to deal with providing the change-marked version in ODT, PDF, and HTML correctly. Of course, we don't have to show the change-marking in an ed.2 cs01, it could be in an auxiliary PDF, for example, avoiding the HTML issue, with ed2cs01 having all changes accepted.) There is an important procedural issue, however. The ODF 1.1 specification is not in the format that is required by current OASIS Specifications. There is no value to an ODF 1.1 (Second Edition) Committee Specification designed to reflect the Errata and IS 26300 alignment alone, if it must be restructured to fit the current requirements. (No such change is being made at the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 level.) I would think there is strong justification for a waiver of the new specification template requirements. In any case, I will make working documents that follow the existing ODF 1.1 format because that is what the Errata will apply to and I need to ensure that the Errata 01 instructions get it right. If we choose to produce a Second Edition that reflects the application of the Errata, we will have the necessary text available (and it will be useful for folks who want to verify the Errata Working Documents). - Dennis

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 03/27/2011 07:24:37 PM: > Working Draft for ODF 1.1 (Second Edition)? > > As part of compiling ODF 1.1 Errata 01, I will be making a change- > marked version of the OASIS ODF 1.1 Specification, reflecting the > change that is needed to reflect the ODF 1.0 Errata 02 plus the IS > 26300 COR1, COR2, and AMD1 (where they have deviations we must anticipate). > > My intention is to use those change-markings as the basis for the > individual ODF 1.1 Errata 01 instructions. I find this to be the > most-reliable way to go about this. > > It strikes me that the final change-marked version, once there is > clean alignment between ODF 1.1 + its errata and the amended IS > 26300, will be a suitable basis for an ODF 1.1 (Second Edition) > Committee Specification 01. > Hi Dennis, Do you think it will be necessary to have an ODF 1.1 (second edition) CS? In particular, do you see a need for any changes to ODF 1.1 that go beyond the non-substantive changes that may be made via Approved Errata? Note that 3.5 of the OASIS TC Process says: "A TC may approve a set of Errata to an OASIS Standard which it developed as "Approved Errata" by: (a) Adopting the set of proposed corrections as a Committee Specification Draft, in the form of a list of changes, and optionally accompanied by a copy of the original OASIS Standard text marked to incorporate the proposed changes." So this suggests that we may not need to have an ODF 1.1 CS, but it would be sufficient to have an ODF 1.1 Approved Errata CSD, accompanied by a marked up version of ODF 1.1 that includes the corrections. Does that make sense? -Rob