Draft notes on teleconference meeting, 2010-03-17

Thu Mar 25 13:10:30 CET 2010

This minutes look fine to me.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

From: sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf Of Francis Cave
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 9:36 PM
To: SC 34/WG 6 mailing list
Subject: Draft notes on teleconference meeting, 2010-03-17

Dear members of WG 6

I attach my draft notes on last week's teleconference meeting. Please let me have any corrections / additions by Wednesday of this week, if possible.

Francis Cave
Convenor

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Document description and processing languages
WG 6 OpenDocument Format

Draft Notes of teleconference meeting of WG 6 on 2010-03-17

1. Roll call of participants

The following participated in the teleconference:

·         Thorsten BEHRENS (OASIS)

·         Michael BRAUER (OASIS/ODF TC Co-Chair)

·         Alex BROWN (GB)

·         Francis CAVE (Convenor)

·         Paul COTTON (CA)

·         Patrick DURUSAU (OASIS/IS 26300 Project Editor)

·         Dennis HAMILTON (OASIS)

·         Jens Mikael JENSEN (DK)

·         Deivi Lopes KUHN (BR)

·         Michiel LEENAARS (NL)

·         Makoto MURATA (JP)

·         Andrew RIST (USA)

·         Svante SCHUBERT (DE)

·         Jomar SILVA (BR)

·         Rob WEIR (OASIS/ODF TC Co-Chair)

2. Adoption of agenda (SC 34 N 1340 rev)

Paul COTTON commented that arrangements for future teleconference meetings would normally be included at the end of the agenda.

Michiel LEENAARS requested that there be an opportunity to make an announcement about the OASIS ODF Plugfest.

It was agreed to include these items under 'Any other business'.

3. Review of comments on ISO/IEC 26300:2006/DCOR 1
                Balloted document: SC 34 N 1337
                Summary of voting: SC 34 N 1388

The comments were reviewed.

It was agreed that the first two JP comments and the CH comment related to formatting issues in the draft text. Dennis HAMILTON agreed to investigate whether these formatting issues were in the OASIS Approved Errata document as published, or were a transposition error in preparing the DCOR text.

The remaining JP comments were editorial and would need to be studied further by the Project Editor and OASIS ODF TC. Rob WEIR said that the comments would be discussed at the next scheduled ODF TC conference call on Monday (2010-03-22).

The Convenor confirmed that, even though the ballot had approved the DCOR text, a Disposition of Comments would still need to be prepared by the Project Editor and forwarded to the SC 34 Secretariat. This could be done simultaneously with submitting a final text for publication.

The Project Editor expressed the hope that the process could be complete by the end of March, and a draft Disposition of Comments might be available for review at the Stockholm meeting on 2010-03-25.

ACTION: Dennis HAMILTON / ODF TC (to investigate formatting issues in the DCOR text)
ACTION: Project Editor / ODF TC (to prepare draft disposition of comments)
ACTION: WG 6 (to review draft disposition of comments)

4. Review of defect reports on ISO/IEC 26300:2006 and actions by Project Editor / ODF TC
                Defect reports submitted by Japan: SC 34 N 1078
                Defect reports submitted by UK: SC 34 N 1309
                OASIS Errata document:
                                ODT: http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd04/OpenDocument-v1.0-errata-cd04.odt
                                PDF: http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd04/OpenDocument-v1.0-errata-cd04.pdf
                                HTML: http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd04/OpenDocument-v1.0-errata-cd04.html

The OASIS Errata document was reviewed.

Rob WEIR explained that OASIS Errata documents are cumulative, whereas JTC 1 Technical Corrigenda are disjoint. The document under review contains both the Approved Errata Part 01 and the (yet-to-be-Approved) Errata Part 02. A DCOR text would need to include only Errata Part 02 as normative text.

Makoto MURATA commented that he had hoped that the responses to most of the JP Defect Reports listed as 'rejected' would have been to insert text to indicate that interpretation of the features concerned is implementation-dependent. Alex BROWN commented that the same response could have been made to at least one of the GB Defect Reports that had been rejected. The Convenor suggested that the OASIS ODF TC might reconsider their responses to Japanese Defect Reports N 1078:18, 23, 25, 27 and 29 and GB Defect Report N1309:4.

ACTION: Project Editor / ODF TC (to reconsider rejected Defect Reports)

With reference to GB Defect Report N1309:3 here was inconclusive discussion about whether or not the term "harsh lighting" is a common term. The Convenor agreed to research whether there is a standard definition of "harsh lighting" in any ISO vocabulary or terminology database.

ACTION: Convenor (to research term "harsh lighting")

5. Preparation for project to amend ISO/IEC 26300:2006 to align with ODF v1.1
                OASIS submission of OpenDocument v1.1 for amendment of ISO/IEC 26300:2006: SC 34 N 1374
                Documents to aid in preparation of an amendment of ISO/IEC 26300:2006: SC 34 N 1375

The OASIS submission (N 1374) and the Project Editor's contribution (N 1375) were discussed. It was requested that WG 6 members should assist the Project Editor in preparation of a text for ballot. There was brief discussion about the idea of producing an automated script for converting the document containing the "diff" document contributed by the Project Editor into the form of a draft Amendment text as expected under JTC 1 procedures.

It was agreed that the Convenor would draft a Recommendation to the SC 34 Plenary to sub-divide Project 26300 to enable an Amendment to be prepared. This Recommendation would need to include a schedule of milestones leading to publication of the Amendment.

ACTION: Convenor (to draft Recommendation)
ACTION: WG 6 (to discuss further in Stockholm)

6. Timing of maintenance activities

There was discussion about the question of what would be the best timing of planned maintenance activities - specifically: the preparation of the Amendment to align with ODF v1.1 vis à vis the preparation of a second Technical Corrigendum based upon OASIS Errata Part 02. This discussion was not entirely conclusive and would need to be re-visited in Stockholm, but there was some level of agreement that it should be possible to proceed with the two maintenance activities in parallel. The first (FPDAM) ballot on a draft Amendment should certainly be based upon the published IS 26300:2006 and the COR 1 final text (assuming it is not already published by ITTF). The DCOR ballot on the draft COR 2 text can take place at around the same time as the FPDAM ballot, or perhaps even a month or so later, as it is a shorter ballot (3 months for a DCOR, as opposed to 4 months for an FPDAM). The draft Amendment text could then be revised to take into account the result of the DCOR ballot prior to the second (FDAM) ballot, as this would not involve any substantive technical changes. All this assumes that OASIS are able to approve the second Errata document to a relatively tight schedule. The obvious alternative would be to wait for the Amendment to be approved and published before finalising the second DCOR text for ballot, which might conceivably fit better with a longer schedule for OASIS approval of the second Errata document.,

ACTION: WG 6 (to discuss further in Stockholm)

7. Review of draft agenda for anticipated WG 6 meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, 2010-03-25/26
                Draft agenda: SC 34 N 1376

The agenda was reviewed. No specific changes were proposed. The plan is to attempt to dispose during the first session on Thursday of all business that requires decisions to be taken prior to the SC 34 Plenary, so that it is not necessary for remote participants in North and South America to participate in the Friday session, given the awkward time difference.

8. Any other business

8.1 Future meetings

Due to lack of time there was no discussion of the timing of future teleconference meetings. However it was agreed that, in general, WG 6 should aim to conduct most of its business by regular teleconference meetings, with face-to-face meetings only being arranged to immediately precede and be co-located with SC 34 Plenaries.

ACTION: WG 6 (to discuss and agree in Stockholm a schedule for future teleconference meetings)

8.2 ODF Plugfest

Speaking on behalf of Michiel LEENAARS, Rob WEIR announced that there would be an ODF Plugfest in Granada, Spain, 2010-04-15/17, at which WG 6 members would be warmly welcome. Further information can be obtained from http://www.odfworkshop.nl/.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg6/attachments/20100325/9dc01c06/attachment-0001.htm>