"Dennis E. Hamilton" <
himself@orcmid.com> wrote on 04/04/2011 12:57:59 PM: > RE: [office] Re: Working Draft for ODF 1.1 (Second Edition)? > > Rob, yes the preparation of a companion markup to the ODF 1.1 Errata > 01 is intended. > > The only reason for creating an ODF 1.1 (Second Edition) Committee > Specification would be to have a stable document that could be used > for reference and also for use by SC34/ITTF if it is desired to > transpose to a fully-integrated edition of IS 26300/COR1/COR2/AMD1. > (The W3C tends to do this with their multiple editions that don't > change the version number.) > I think these are for two different intents. The OASIS Errata option would be the full text, but with the changes marked in the text for publication. So it is showing the changes in a fuller context. I don't see anything specified by OASIS for the naming schema for such documents, or what title page might look like. The ISO republication would be with the changes incorporated, i.e., with no change markings. It would be a clean text. Of course, one can generate the clean copy from the change-tracked copy trivially, at least in theory. Regen of table of contents, etc., would also be required. > Also, I am not sure what we could call the accompanying "copy of the > original OASIS Standard text marked to incorporate the proposed > changes" once the "proposed changes" are approved as ODF 1.1 Errata > 01, and how it would be made available. > I've no idea. Good question for Robin. > I need to call my Working Drafts of the marked standard something, > so I will use "ODF 1.1 (Errata Markup) WDxx" until this is settled. > The file names will be something like "OpenDocument-v1.1-markup-wdNN.odt". > > There is no hurry on this part, I just need a way to provide an > auditable trail of the markup drafts. > Sounds like a good solution for now. Regards, -Rob > PS: I just found another glitch in the implementation of change- > tracking in the OO.o/LOffice 3.3.x code base that makes certain > change tracking untrustworthy (i.e., the change tracking is > corrupted after the fact). This involves a deletion edge case. I > think I can avoid it in my application of the proposed Errata 01 > changes to an ODF 1.1 base document. > >