OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  Groups - ODF_1.0_Errata_4h (ODF_1.0_Errata_draft_4h.odt) uploaded

    Posted 10-15-2008 15:16
    Greetings!
    
    I have uploaded the revised errata draft that includes the proposed changes
    for 17.5.
    
    Hope everyone is having a great day!
    
    Patrick
    
     -- Patrick Durusau*
    
    The document named ODF_1.0_Errata_4h (ODF_1.0_Errata_draft_4h.odt) has been
    submitted by Patrick Durusau* to the OASIS Open Document Format for Office
    Applications (OpenDocument) TC document repository.
    
    Document Description:
    Errata draft for ODF 1.0
    
    View Document Details:
    http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=29668
    
    Download Document:  
    http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/29668/ODF_1.0_Errata_draft_4h.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
    


  • 2.  RE: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments

    Posted 10-16-2008 06:19
    Patrick,
    
    I made the following adjustments to Errata_4h, attached as ODF_1.0_Errata_draft4h-dh.odt:
    
    A. For both entries for section 17.5, I reduced the font size of the instructions until the entire entry, including red-lining, is visible.
    
    B. For 17.5 at 686-18 (OASIS ODF 1.0) and 699-17 (IS 26300) I replaced the remaining "must" in the new instructions with "shall."
    
    C. For 17.5 at 686-13 (OASIS ODF 1.0) and 699-17 [sic] (IS 26300)
    
    1. I changed the 699-17 to 699-12.
    
    2. In the paragraph to be replaced, ODF 1.0 refers to section 5 of [RFC2396].  IS 26300 refers to section 6.5 of [RFC3987].  Also, the ODF 1.0 section uses URI throughout, including in its title and in the paragraph to be replaced.  The IS 26300 section uses IRI instead.  Finally, ODF 1.0 does not have references for either of [RFC3987] and [RFC3986].
    
    RECOMMENDATION:
    
    3. I changed the paragraph to be replaced to have the IS 26300 text, not the ODF 1.0 text.
    
    4. I indicated that the change is not to be made only to IS 26300 and not to OASIS ODF 1.0.
       
    This becomes an accurate change for IS 26300:2006.  The change is not needed for OASIS ODF 1.0.
    
    5. If we feel we need to make a comparable change in OASIS ODF 1.0, including switching from [RFC2396] to [RFC3986] and [RFC3989], we can do that later with a replacement for the entire section.  We can also revisit the use of the anyURI type from [xmlschema-2] (the 2001-05-02 
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/) which is tied to [RFC2396] and [RFC2732] (the latter providing for IPv6 literal addresses and not applying to relative-path references).  We can then decide how we want to regard the switch from URI to IRI as a breaking down-level change (or not).  I don't think we should hold up this errata with a struggle over that.      
    
     - Dennis
    
    PS: I am concerned the leap in [RFC3987] section 1.2a is not all that clear-cut for anyURI and certainly not for string.  I think it is important to have a declaration that the URIs are mapped from IRIs, as 17.5 attempts starting with OpenDocument-v1.0ed2-cs1.
    
    


  • 3.  Re: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments

    Posted 10-16-2008 10:35
    Dennis,
    
    On 10/16/08 08:22, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
    > Patrick,
    > 
    > I made the following adjustments to Errata_4h, attached as ODF_1.0_Errata_draft4h-dh.odt:
    > 
    > A. For both entries for section 17.5, I reduced the font size of the instructions until the entire entry, including red-lining, is visible.
    
    That's okay for me.
    > 
    > B. For 17.5 at 686-18 (OASIS ODF 1.0) and 699-17 (IS 26300) I replaced the remaining "must" in the new instructions with "shall."
    
    Yes, it must be "shall" rather than "must".
    
    > 
    > C. For 17.5 at 686-13 (OASIS ODF 1.0) and 699-17 [sic] (IS 26300)
    > 
    > 1. I changed the 699-17 to 699-12.
    > 
    > 2. In the paragraph to be replaced, ODF 1.0 refers to section 5 of [RFC2396].  IS 26300 refers to section 6.5 of [RFC3987].  Also, the ODF 1.0 section uses URI throughout, including in its title and in the paragraph to be replaced.  The IS 26300 section uses IRI instead.  Finally, ODF 1.0 does not have references for either of [RFC3987] and [RFC3986].
    > 
    > RECOMMENDATION:
    > 
    > 3. I changed the paragraph to be replaced to have the IS 26300 text, not the ODF 1.0 text.
    
    The errata is an errata for ODF 1.0. I therefor think it does not work
    to have only the ISO 26300 text here, because this simply does not exist
    in the ODF 1.0 document for which we provide the errata.
    
    I have no objections to providing the ISO 26300 in addition to the ODF
    1.0 text.
    
    > 
    > 4. I indicated that the change is not to be made only to IS 26300 and not to OASIS ODF 1.0.
    >    
    > This becomes an accurate change for IS 26300:2006.  The change is not needed for OASIS ODF 1.0.
    
    But we are creating an errata for ODF 1.0, not ISO 26300. The only
    reference to RFC2396 is the one in section 17.5. We do not get
    inconsistent if we replace that with a reference RFC3986 and RFC3987. We
    did that for ODF 1.0 2nd edition already.
    
    Why don't we just update the ODF 1.0 specification by the errata to what
    we have in ODF 1.0 2nd edition/ISO 26300 anyway, of cause with applying
    the additional errata we are discussing here? The only thing that was
    missing is an additional reference to RFC3987.
    
    Best regards
    
    Michael
    
    
    > 
    > 5. If we feel we need to make a comparable change in OASIS ODF 1.0, including switching from [RFC2396] to [RFC3986] and [RFC3989], we can do that later with a replacement for the entire section.  We can also revisit the use of the anyURI type from [xmlschema-2] (the 2001-05-02 
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/) which is tied to [RFC2396] and [RFC2732] (the latter providing for IPv6 literal addresses and not applying to relative-path references).  We can then decide how we want to regard the switch from URI to IRI as a breaking down-level change (or not).  I don't think we should hold up this errata with a struggle over that.      
    > 
    >  - Dennis
    > 
    > PS: I am concerned the leap in [RFC3987] section 1.2a is not all that clear-cut for anyURI and certainly not for string.  I think it is important to have a declaration that the URIs are mapped from IRIs, as 17.5 attempts starting with OpenDocument-v1.0ed2-cs1.
    > 
    > 


  • 4.  RE: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments

    Posted 10-16-2008 16:25
    Michael to answer your question:
    
    1. To make the comparable change in the OASIS Standard ODF 1.0, we would need to make changes in most of the section to have it become the same as the section in IS 26300 (with its errata changes).  That is because of the title, the use of URI where IRI is wanted, and to provide correct editing instructions.
    
    2. We can do that.  My recommendation for doing that is to have a separate 17.5 erratum that only changes The OASIS Standard section, in addition tot he one that only changes the IS 26300 section.  To attempt to accomplish all of that in one erratum where the changes required are quite different seems simply unworkable to me. 
    
    3. I had hoped to avoid that work so we might avoid another discussion about substantive changes *and* to deal with the SC34 defect report.  It is my understanding that the SC34 defect report is not about the OASIS Standard ODF 1.0.  It is about IS 26300:2006.  What we are stumbling over is the fact that this is a place where IS 26300 and OASIS ODF 1.0 are different and can't be resolved against the defect report using identical corrections.
    
    That is my thinking.  
    
    4. I see no technical problem with making the change to align OASIS ODF 1.0 with IS 26300:2006 (ODF 1.0ed2-cs1 for us), but I don't believe it is appropriate to attempt it by adjusting just the one paragraph in the same erratum as the change to IS 26300.
    
    5. QUESTION: Is it appropriate and desired that we retrofit the IS 26300 modifications (after application of errata) to the OASIS Standard ODF 1.0 specification via the errata? 
    
     - Dennis
    
    PS: I don't know the answer to the question.  I'm concerned that it is a substantial matter.
    
    


  • 5.  RE: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments

    Posted 10-16-2008 16:38
    The view from where I'm sitting:
    
    ISO 26300 is *not* ODF 1.0. It is ODF 1.0 2nd Edition. ODF 1.0 2nd Edition is a Committee Specification; not an OASIS Standard. Changes to Committee Specifications are not processed via Errata; instead, changes are made to the spec, a new Committee Draft is issued, a 15-day public review follows if substantive changes are made, followed by a new ballot for Committee Specification status. 
    
    Regards,
    
    Mary
    
    > 


  • 6.  RE: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments

    Posted 10-16-2008 17:03
    Mary's response is interesting.
    
    It looks like we have two options.
    
    1. Don't make that relative-path citation change for 17.5 at all, and handle it separately with a replacement for 1.0ed2-cs1, if ever.  We can also more-easily make those changes to ODF 1.1 as well, since it has the same language as 1.0ed2-cs1.
    
    2. Make the change to 17.5 as an OASIS Standard ODF 1.0 change (see my item 4, below) and show the corresponding change to 1.0ed2-cs1 (in a separate erratum entry) as a courtesy to the IS 26300, SC34 folk as we have been doing. We also have the opportunity to roll into an erratum for ODF 1.1 and to have it be straight in ODF 1.2 from the beginning.
    
    We just have to decide what the risk of substantive change is with option 2 (that is, answer the question in item 5, below).
    
     - Dennis
    
    


  • 7.  RE: [office] ODF_1.0_Errata_4h - Adjustments

    Posted 10-16-2008 17:23
    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" 


  • 8.  ODF 1.0 Maintenance + Synchronizationof OASIS:ISO/IEC

    Posted 10-17-2008 02:09
    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.
    
     
    
    


  • 9.  Re: ODF 1.0 Maintenance + Synchronizationof OASIS:ISO/IEC

    Posted 10-17-2008 03:30
    "Dennis E. Hamilton"