OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Dear all

Here are some editorial issues that I've encountered in looking at the text of ODF 1.4 CS01, currently out for public review and comment. Many of these issues concern the use of the term "contains" on elements that have no child nodes. I do not consider the attributes of an element to be "content", but you might feel that I am being pedantic!

1. All Parts: Metadata needs updating, as it still relates to ODF 1.3.
2. Part 3, Section 5.3.2: It is not clear whether the list of possible actions has an order of priority.
3. Part 3, Section 5.3.5, Para 1: Delete "is" before "may be".
4. Part 3, Section 8.13.2 <text:index-entry-text>: The prose states that the element "contains the text of an index entry", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty.
5. Part 3, Section 9.6.10 <table:data-pilot-subtotal>: The prose states that the element "contains the results of a single subtotal calculation", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty. I think the term "contains" should perhaps be "references" or "specifies" (via the "table:function" attribute).
6. Part 3, Section 9.9.5 <table:dependency>: The prose states that the element "contains the information about one change action on which on which the current tracked change depends", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty. I think the term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies" (via the "table:id" attribute). Also, the repetition of "on which" needs to be deleted.
7. Part 3, Section 9.9.18 <table:cell-address>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
8. Part 3, Section 10.4.9 <draw:param>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
9. Part 3, Section 13.10 <form:list-value>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
10. Part 3, Section 19.39 db:data-source-setting-is-list: The bulleted list appears to reference the wrong element. It probably should reference 12.23 <db:data-source-setting>, not 12.22 <db:data-source-settings>, because <db:data-source-setting-value> is a child of the former, not the latter.

Kind regards,

Francis

Dear all

Here are some editorial issues that I've encountered in looking at the text of ODF 1.4 CS01, currently out for public review and comment. Many of these issues concern the use of the term "contains" on elements that have no child nodes. I do not consider the attributes of an element to be "content", but you might feel that I am being pedantic!

1. All Parts: Metadata needs updating, as it still relates to ODF 1.3.
2. Part 3, Section 5.3.2: It is not clear whether the list of possible actions has an order of priority.
3. Part 3, Section 5.3.5, Para 1: Delete "is" before "may be".
4. Part 3, Section 8.13.2 <text:index-entry-text>: The prose states that the element "contains the text of an index entry", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty.
5. Part 3, Section 9.6.10 <table:data-pilot-subtotal>: The prose states that the element "contains the results of a single subtotal calculation", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty. I think the term "contains" should perhaps be "references" or "specifies" (via the "table:function" attribute).
6. Part 3, Section 9.9.5 <table:dependency>: The prose states that the element "contains the information about one change action on which on which the current tracked change depends", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty. I think the term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies" (via the "table:id" attribute). Also, the repetition of "on which" needs to be deleted.
7. Part 3, Section 9.9.18 <table:cell-address>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
8. Part 3, Section 10.4.9 <draw:param>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
9. Part 3, Section 13.10 <form:list-value>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
10. Part 3, Section 19.39 db:data-source-setting-is-list: The bulleted list appears to reference the wrong element. It probably should reference 12.23 <db:data-source-setting>, not 12.22 <db:data-source-settings>, because <db:data-source-setting-value> is a child of the former, not the latter.

Kind regards,

Francis

Dear all

Here is another editorial issue in ODF 1.4 CS01:

Part 3, Section 3.1.4, Table 7 – Root element content models

This table is poorly presented, as the column headings are almost unreadable, especially as there is no distinction between required hyphens and discretionary hyphens in tag names. The same information is in the generated grey text in 3.1.2 and 3.1.3.x, so maybe 3.1.4 can simply be deleted. Otherwise, I would suggest that either the column headings be rotated to run up the page, or the whole table be re-formatted in three columns thus:

[I hope this displays correctly on your email client...]

Francis

Dear all

Here are some editorial issues that I've encountered in looking at the text of ODF 1.4 CS01, currently out for public review and comment. Many of these issues concern the use of the term "contains" on elements that have no child nodes. I do not consider the attributes of an element to be "content", but you might feel that I am being pedantic!

1. All Parts: Metadata needs updating, as it still relates to ODF 1.3.
2. Part 3, Section 5.3.2: It is not clear whether the list of possible actions has an order of priority.
3. Part 3, Section 5.3.5, Para 1: Delete "is" before "may be".
4. Part 3, Section 8.13.2 <text:index-entry-text>: The prose states that the element "contains the text of an index entry", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty.
5. Part 3, Section 9.6.10 <table:data-pilot-subtotal>: The prose states that the element "contains the results of a single subtotal calculation", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty. I think the term "contains" should perhaps be "references" or "specifies" (via the "table:function" attribute).
6. Part 3, Section 9.9.5 <table:dependency>: The prose states that the element "contains the information about one change action on which on which the current tracked change depends", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty. I think the term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies" (via the "table:id" attribute). Also, the repetition of "on which" needs to be deleted.
7. Part 3, Section 9.9.18 <table:cell-address>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
8. Part 3, Section 10.4.9 <draw:param>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
9. Part 3, Section 13.10 <form:list-value>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
10. Part 3, Section 19.39 db:data-source-setting-is-list: The bulleted list appears to reference the wrong element. It probably should reference 12.23 <db:data-source-setting>, not 12.22 <db:data-source-settings>, because <db:data-source-setting-value> is a child of the former, not the latter.

Kind regards,

Francis

Another editorial issue:

Part 3, Section 3.11 Cursor Position Setting

In the first sentence it is not clear, or consistent with other cases, that "cursor-position" is a string value. Nor is it clear whether this is the PITarget name (see XML 1.0 (5^th edition), Section 2.6, production [16]), or a string that follows the name (implied by the phrase "followed by", but in that case the PITarget name is undefined).

Also, in the second sentence the phrase "arbitrary implementation-defined" sounds like a contradiction in terms: how can it be both "arbitrary" and "implementation-defined"? Would "arbitrary implementation-dependent" be better?

Francis

Dear all

Here is another editorial issue in ODF 1.4 CS01:

Part 3, Section 3.1.4, Table 7 – Root element content models

This table is poorly presented, as the column headings are almost unreadable, especially as there is no distinction between required hyphens and discretionary hyphens in tag names. The same information is in the generated grey text in 3.1.2 and 3.1.3.x, so maybe 3.1.4 can simply be deleted. Otherwise, I would suggest that either the column headings be rotated to run up the page, or the whole table be re-formatted in three columns thus:

[I hope this displays correctly on your email client...]

Francis

Dear all

Here are some editorial issues that I've encountered in looking at the text of ODF 1.4 CS01, currently out for public review and comment. Many of these issues concern the use of the term "contains" on elements that have no child nodes. I do not consider the attributes of an element to be "content", but you might feel that I am being pedantic!

1. All Parts: Metadata needs updating, as it still relates to ODF 1.3.
2. Part 3, Section 5.3.2: It is not clear whether the list of possible actions has an order of priority.
3. Part 3, Section 5.3.5, Para 1: Delete "is" before "may be".
4. Part 3, Section 8.13.2 <text:index-entry-text>: The prose states that the element "contains the text of an index entry", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty.
5. Part 3, Section 9.6.10 <table:data-pilot-subtotal>: The prose states that the element "contains the results of a single subtotal calculation", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty. I think the term "contains" should perhaps be "references" or "specifies" (via the "table:function" attribute).
6. Part 3, Section 9.9.5 <table:dependency>: The prose states that the element "contains the information about one change action on which on which the current tracked change depends", but the element is specified in the schema to be empty. I think the term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies" (via the "table:id" attribute). Also, the repetition of "on which" needs to be deleted.
7. Part 3, Section 9.9.18 <table:cell-address>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
8. Part 3, Section 10.4.9 <draw:param>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
9. Part 3, Section 13.10 <form:list-value>: The term "contains" should be "references" or "specifies".
10. Part 3, Section 19.39 db:data-source-setting-is-list: The bulleted list appears to reference the wrong element. It probably should reference 12.23 <db:data-source-setting>, not 12.22 <db:data-source-settings>, because <db:data-source-setting-value> is a child of the former, not the latter.

Kind regards,

Francis