OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next

    Posted 01-17-2011 18:33
    On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 03:59 -0700, Michael Brauer wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: > > > While I realize that we can't mandate that and in fact have no control > > over whether a vendor calls their format ODF1.3 or whatever, I thin kwe > > A CSD approval is the first level of approval in the OASIS TC process. > So, if we approve an ODF 1.3 draft as CSD, and if an implementor > implements this CSD, why shouldn't that be called ODF 1.3? How would you > call it instead? Since there can be incompatible changes between CSD1 and CSD2, I definitely would not call it ODF1.3. Andreas >


  • 2.  RE: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next

    Posted 01-17-2011 20:16
    I agree, it should not be called ODF 1.3 until there is a full standards-track CSD on the way to becoming a Committee Specification. I think they should simply be ODF CSD's, with progressive numbering (e.g., continue beyond CSD07 if we take CSD07 to Committee Specification as expected). It would be even better if we could somehow treat these CSDs as provisional supplements to ODF 1.2 until we roll them out as ODF-next. (The version could indicate use of supplements in some manner when produced in documents, perhaps office:version="1.2+CSD08" or some-such, although the processing of version identifications would become more complicated (and is probably something that CSD08 needs to deal with). [Note: The current definition of the generator string says it should not be used to distinguish features of implementation versions by design, so we should not mess with that.] It would be even better if we could do some CSDs *as* supplements, avoiding the need to reissue the full set of ODF documents every time when the CSDs might offer only relatively-localized changes. This should also take a lot of friction out of the desire to provide CSDs on regular, relatively-short cycles. I am not at all sure how the TC Process could handle this sort of thing, but it seems sufficiently better for the labors of TC volunteers and for reviewers and developers that it is worth finding out. - Dennis


  • 3.  Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next

    Posted 01-17-2011 20:38
    Dennis, what you describe is an interesting approach, but I don't think it is compatible with the OASIS Naming directives: http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/ndr/namingDirectives.html Best regards Michael On 17.01.2011 21:15, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I agree, it should not be called ODF 1.3 until there is a full standards-track CSD on the way to becoming a Committee Specification. I think they should simply be ODF CSD's, with progressive numbering (e.g., continue beyond CSD07 if we take CSD07 to Committee Specification as expected). It would be even better if we could somehow treat these CSDs as provisional supplements to ODF 1.2 until we roll them out as ODF-next. (The version could indicate use of supplements in some manner when produced in documents, perhaps office:version= 1.2+CSD08 or some-such, although the processing of version identifications would become more complicated (and is probably something that CSD08 needs to deal with). [Note: The current definition of the generator string says it should not be used to distinguish features of implementation versions by design, so we should not mess with that.] It would be even better if we could do some CSDs *as* supplements, avoiding the need to reissue the full set of ODF documents every time when the CSDs might offer only relatively-localized changes. This should also take a lot of friction out of the desire to provide CSDs on regular, relatively-short cycles. I am not at all sure how the TC Process could handle this sort of thing, but it seems sufficiently better for the labors of TC volunteers and for reviewers and developers that it is worth finding out. - Dennis


  • 4.  RE: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next

    Posted 01-17-2011 21:06
    "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 01/17/2011 03:15:44 PM: > > I am not at all sure how the TC Process could handle this sort of thing, but > it seems sufficiently better for the labors of TC volunteers and for > reviewers and developers that it is worth finding out. > The naming scheme for TC work is dictated by the OASIS Naming Directive: http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/ndr/namingDirectives.html -Rob