OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

This is OpenDocument v1.2 part 3 draft 12. Compared to draft 12, there are
only a few edits made by Patrick, and a few newly reported issues were
resolved. Most of them were related to the normative references, which have
(in general) been reviewed and updated based on the proposal Rob send out
some time ago.

There is also an editor's version available,which contains the change
tracking information for the changes made since draft 11 (except those for
the external references).

 -- Mr Michael Brauer

The document named OpenDocument-v1.2-part3-draft12.odt has been submitted
by Mr Michael Brauer to the OASIS Open Document Format for Office
Applications (OpenDocument) TC document repository.

Document Description:
OpenDocument v1.2 part 3 draft 12

View Document Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=34731

Download Document:  
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34731/OpenDocument-v1.2-part3-draft12.odt


PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email application
may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and paste
the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.

-OASIS Open Administration

There are no known issues for part 3. I therefore propose that we 
conduct a Committee Draft ballot for this draft, and the corresponding 
schema files at:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34732/OpenDocument-v1.2-part3-draft12-schemas.zip

I therefore make the motion that this ballot shall be conducted (as per 
our new standing rule).

While I'm not making a motion for this right now, I believe that this 
draft is also a candidate for a public review of part 3.

Best regards

Michael




On 10/16/09 15:10, Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote:
> This is OpenDocument v1.2 part 3 draft 12. Compared to draft 12, there are
> only a few edits made by Patrick, and a few newly reported issues were
> resolved. Most of them were related to the normative references, which have
> (in general) been reviewed and updated based on the proposal Rob send out
> some time ago.
> 
> There is also an editor's version available,which contains the change
> tracking information for the changes made since draft 11 (except those for
> the external references).
> 
>  -- Mr Michael Brauer
> 
> The document named OpenDocument-v1.2-part3-draft12.odt has been submitted
> by Mr Michael Brauer to the OASIS Open Document Format for Office
> Applications (OpenDocument) TC document repository.
> 
> Document Description:
> OpenDocument v1.2 part 3 draft 12
> 
> View Document Details:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=34731
> 
> Download Document:  
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34731/OpenDocument-v1.2-part3-draft12.odt
> 
> 
> PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email application
> may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and paste
> the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
> 
> -OASIS Open Administration


-- 
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, Wolf Frenkel
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

+1 for conducting the ballot.  Since approving a CD and sending it out to 
public review both require a Full Majority Vote, we should be able to do 
this in a single ballot.  But we will need some additional language in the 
ballot question.

I think we have the main question as:

"Shall the OASIS ODF TC approve ODF 1.2, Part III, Draft 12 as a Committee 
Draft and to send that Committee Draft out for a 60-day Public Review?"

We then should also list the the URLs for the required 3 versions of the 
specification:

Original Source: 
PDF:
HTML

And also declare one of three versions of the specification be the 
authoritative document.

We also need a URL for the Schema files

We are also asked, for the Public review, to recommend a list of "external 
stakeholders who should be notified of the review".  I suggest we name: 
the ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC, the ODF Adoption TC, 
JTC1/SC34, the International Digital Publishing Forum. and the W3C's 
WebApp WG.

Regards,

-Rob



From:
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg 

Speaking hypothetically, the combined ballot means that someone who thinks
going to CD is fine but public review is premature has to be willing to end
up with neither in that ballot round.

Since we've not yet had a CD for Part 3, I think we should work the stages
progressively, especially since public review puts some restrictions on our
ability to modify the document short of deciding not to go to CS and going
to another CD instead, putting us pretty much back at start.

 - Dennis 

PS: And the current draft seems to be attracting public comments as it is.

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200910/msg00303.html
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 06:41
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] OpenDocument-v1.2-part3-draft12.odt

+1 for conducting the ballot.  Since approving a CD and sending it out to 
public review both require a Full Majority Vote, we should be able to do 
this in a single ballot.  But we will need some additional language in the 
ballot question.

I think we have the main question as:

"Shall the OASIS ODF TC approve ODF 1.2, Part III, Draft 12 as a Committee 
Draft and to send that Committee Draft out for a 60-day Public Review?"

[ ... ]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" 

On Friday 16. October 2009 15.19.20 ext Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - 
Hamburg wrote:
> There are no known issues for part 3.

Hmm, the 'title' of the meta info says;
 "OASIS Open Office Specification - Part 3: Packages"

At minimum this is confusing, at worst this is incorrectly stating that this 
is the specification of Open Office (.org).

Maybe a title like this would be more appropriate?
 "OASIS Open Document Specification - Part 3: Packages"

I think this is a common thing for all documents.
-- 
Thomas Zander