OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Hi Oliver,

Oh no --- not again!!!

I'm not going to this nightmare again. You present your personal opinion as a TC opinion here.

The whole list conversation ended with: There is no single interpretation --- otherwise we wouldn't have had to correct this in ODF1.2.

So we don't even agree that the ODF1.0/1.1 specification allows several interpretations of the continuation of paragraph numberings?

~Florian



>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems <Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM> 03/23/09 10:44 AM >>>
Hi Florian,

Florian Reuter wrote:
> Dear TC members,
>
> Wrt to:
>  > The TC was in agreement that behavior that is implementation
>  > defined in ODF 1.0 and 1.1 cannot be defined in an ODF 1.0/1.1 errata
>  > since this would be a substantial change.
>
> So what is the solution then? Do nothing?

When I recall our last TC's call correct and when I look at the minutes,
further actions are discussed, but due to the end of our TC's call, we
did not decide on any further action.

>
> I personally think it should be mentioned in an errata that there is a
> problem with paragraph numbering and it should be explained what the
> problem is so that everybody is clear about what constructs to avoid.
>

 From my point of view the purpose of an errata for a released ODF
specification is not to describe problems of this ODF specification - it
purpose is to correct this ODF specification.
Thus, I personally do not think that an errata should contain such an
explanation.

> Bottom line: For the "continue" behavior of ODF 1.0/1.1 paragraph
> numbering at least two interpretations exists.
>

I assume that you mean by <"continue" behavior of ODF 1.0/1.1 paragraph
numbering> the list continuation specified by attribute
text:continue-numbering. Is this correct?

As already mentioned in
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200903/msg00090.html I know
the following two interpretations of text:continue-numbering:
- A wrong one, implemented in OpenOffice.org 2.x - from my point of view
not a valid interpretation, because this is obviously an error of
OpenOffice.org 2.x
- The correct one, when carefully reading the ODF 1.0/1.1 specification.
Which "two interpretations" do you have in mind?


Best regards, Oliver.

>
>  >>> Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM> 03/23/09 8:58 AM >>>
> [revised minutes: Doug Mahugh did not have voting rights for this meeting]
>  ...
>
> * Discussion of public comments:
>
> - 205: The suggested reference http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/
> seems to be appropriate, but should be turned into a bibliographic
> reference.
> - 206: Formula issue, already resolved
> - 207: (Formula) proposal
> - 208: (Incompatible) name changes will not be considered for ODF 1.2 as
> well as for ODF 1.0 and 1.1 erratas, but may be considered for ODF-Next.
> - 209: (Formula) proposal
> - 210: The TC was in agreement that behavior that is implementation
> defined in ODF 1.0 and 1.1 cannot be defined in an ODF 1.0/1.1 errata
> since this would be a substantial change. The TC was further in
> agreement that the mentioned issue is resolved in ODF 1.2. Since this
> resolution seemed not to be sufficient for all TC members, it was
> discussed whether additional actions would be possible and reasonable.
> It was stated that vendors in any case could document the behavior they
> have implemented. The discussion was adjourned.
>
>
> * Adjournment
>
> The meeting was adjourned at 5:05pm CET
>
> --
> Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
> StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
> Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55
> D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com
> http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500
> http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
>
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
> D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
    

--
=======================================================================
Sun Microsystems GmbH    Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
Nagelsweg 55             Software Engineer - OpenOffice.org/StarOffice
20097 Hamburg
Germany                  Fax:   (+49 40) 23 646 955
http://www.sun.de        mailto:oliver-rainer.wittmann@sun.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sitz der Gesellschaft:
Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

=======================================================================
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (od) - OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Hi Florian,

I have got a simple request:
Please answer my questions in my post. Otherwise, it is not clear that I 
am addressing the same thing as you are talking about.
In my honest opinion you are not very clear in your statements:
- What do you mean by <"continue" behaviour of paragraph numbering>?
- About which two interpretations your are talking about?

Further comments/answers are below inline.

Florian Reuter wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> Oh no --- not again!!!
> 
> I'm not going to this nightmare again. You present your personal opinion 
> as a TC opinion here.

No.
I only presented my opinion, not the TC's one.

> 
> The whole list conversation ended with: There is no single 
> interpretation --- otherwise we wouldn't have had to correct this in ODF1.2.

We have clarified some stuff regarding lists in ODF 1.2, but we had made 
no change to the specification text of attribute text:continue-numbering.

Among other things we clarified for each