OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  More comments on ODF 1.0 2nd errata?

    Posted 01-28-2010 15:27 
    

  


On our last TC call we planned to move the draft of the 2nd Errata for
ODF 1.0 to a CD vote at our next TC meeting.

    
There have been four comments so far on the errata02 only from Patrick:
    

      
  
    1. Comment:
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201001/msg00250.html
      
Amendment: Changed second column header from 'Section Refinement' to
'Sub Heading'
      2. 
  
    2. Comment:
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201001/msg00252.html
      
Amendment: In
    
15.14.12 changed 'repeated' to 'repeat'
      3. 
  
    3. Comment:
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201001/msg00253.html
      
Amendment: Shall there be an editors action?
      
  
      4. 
  
    4. Comment:
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201001/msg00289.html
      
Amendment: No Action so far, shall we change the wording in ODF 1.0
that the feature is 'implementation dependent'?
      
If so, I would move those notes into the table with a changed wording.
      5. 

    
Any further comment on errata and on above 3. & 4.?

    
Regards,
    
Svante


  • 2.  Re: [office] More comments on ODF 1.0 2nd errata?

    Posted 01-28-2010 16:17 
    

  


On 1/28/10 4:26 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:

    4B61ACBA.8050003@sun.com" type="cite">
  
..
    
  
      
    
    1. Comment: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201001/msg00289.html
      
Amendment: No Action so far, shall we change the wording in ODF 1.0
that the feature is 'implementation dependent'?
      
If so, I would move those notes into the table with a changed wording.
      2. 
  
    

    
Amendment: Exchange 'implementation defined' with 'implementation
dependent' in the notes.

    
I was blind for this mistake, thank you Patrick!
    
If I remember it well 'implementation defined' means the implementation
have to explicitly define 'somewhere', how it handles this feature when
it wants to apply to the standard.
    
Which causes a problem if implementation that had not defined their
behavior for ODF 1.0 previously, they would suddenly would no longer
support ODF 1.0 after that errata. Right?

    
The one question remains: shall we change the wording in the spec and
for this move the change from the notes to the table?

    
Regards,
    
Svante


  • 3.  Re: [office] More comments on ODF 1.0 2nd errata?

    Posted 01-29-2010 14:08 
    Hi Svante,

I have three more comments:

1. The suggestion for 7.7.1. is based on the suggestion in issue

http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-1800

We have further clarified the text in ODF 1.2. It there reads:

> The text:copy-outline-levels attribute specifies whether index entries 
> are indented according to the outline level of their source.
> The defined values for the text:copy-outline-levels attribute are:
> false: no indentation is added.
> true: index entries are indented according to the outline level of their source. 

I suggest that we take this text also for the errata.


2. For 8.4.3 the suggestion is:

> The


Related Content