Robert, that's an interesting question/suggestion.
I think the reason for the change in the IRI-specific paragraph was to deal
with path-relative reference being part of the URI syntax but the term is
not used in the IRI syntax (which appears to use "rootless" instead). The
current reference to section 6.5 of [RFC3987] is not completely informative
(although it has some important elements, especially considering how all
segments of an IRI are not necessarily treated the same, something that can
happen for in-package paths and paths that leave the package). It is
probably not a giant problem but Murata-san found the change to be agreeable
in discussions with Michael. (Of course, Murata-san is only paying
attention to IS 26300, etc.)
We could avoid that change (for now) since it is technically not a fix that
works directly for the ODF 1.0 OASIS Standard. Also, there is an item in
the new list of defects that will raise the issue again.
NEW QUESTION
------------
This must have been considered and I apologize for revisiting old analysis,
but I am curious if the current maintenance and incoming avalanche of
defect-report items justifies another look:
1. IS THERE ANY TECHNICAL OBSTACLE TO PROCESSING OpenDocument-v1.0ed2-cs1 AS
AN OASIS STANDARD?
2. IF WE CAN DO IT, WHY IT MIGHT BE A POWERFUL IMPROVEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE
AND SC34 SYNCHRONIZATION:
2.1 The idea would be to process Second Edition CS1 without changes (no
applied errata) and go through the pain of an OASIS Standard ballot process
solely for the purpose of aligning with ISO/IEC now and for future
maintenance of PAS-submitted OASIS ODF Standards.
2.2 The benefit would be to have a 2d edition of ODF 1.0 that is an OASIS
Standard and that is perfectly aligned with IS 26300:2006.
2.3 We could now reconcile maintenance of ODF 1.0 with IS 26300 in a
direct way (first, using the errata we already have) and not go into
contortions where ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.0ed2 differ, and we could make errata on
the Second Edition that are directly responsive to such items that come up
with ODF comments and with defect reports from SC34. Comments and defect
submissions involving substantive changes would be deferred up-level to an
in-progress or subsequent version.
2.4 All subsequent OASIS ODF Standards (ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2) are
descendents of ODF 1.0ed2, so there is no discontinuity in the lineage of
OASIS Standard specifications.
But, of course, it matters whether this is easily done under OASIS
procedures and is considered worthy.
3. KEY ASSUMPTION
I am operating under the assumption that ODF 1.0 versions will continue to
have overlapping lives and are generally intended to be upward compatible,
at least in the ODF 1.x series.
I presume that a PAS submission for ODF 1.2, say, would be viewed as a new
ISO/IEC Standard and not just a maintenance of IS 26300. I am guessing
about that. If it were to be IS 26300:2009, say, I think it would not be
presumed to obsolete 26300:2005 either way.
I am assuming that for the foreseeable future, ODF 1.x Standards do not
supplant any of their predecessors. This assumption is consistent with the
handling of other standards for (interchange) formats, since the formats may
be long-lived whether or not there is active development and interest in
extended versions. (I notice that XML 1.0 is about to go to edition 5,
although there is a complaint about substantive changes in that one.)
4. SOAP BOX
Finally, from my position of ignorance of the ins-and-outs of the PAS
process and the OASIS relationship with ISO/IEC JTC1, I would think that an
alignment of this kind would be viewed as a positive step in carrying out
PAS-submitter responsibilities for maintenance.
It would certainly make our maintenance work more straightforward. Having a
common errata for ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.0ed2 would also make much more sense
(since almost all items will apply to both specifications), and the drive
for clarifications from SC34 and IS 26300:2006 adopters would be greatly
facilitate.
Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:29
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments
What if we pulled this item altogether from the draft errata document and
fixed it in ODF 1.2 only? What is the downside? Is the underlying issue
such that the continued presence of the defect in ODF 1.0 (and ISO/IEC
26300) will present substantial practical difficulties to an implementor
or to other users of the standard?
If not, I'd remove this item from the document. We can then approve what
we all agree on and give this item more consideration and possibly add it
to a future errata document. Maybe it would fit better on an ODF 1.1
errata document? This is certainly within our rights as a TC. And even
ISO/IEC process allows a "Further consideration required" response to an
item in a defect report, so such a decision (provided we approve the
remaining items in a timely fashion) should be acceptable.
-Rob
From:
"Dennis E. Hamilton"