DCOR 2 comments
robert_weir at us.ibm.com
robert_weir at us.ibm.com
Tue May 3 02:14:11 CEST 2011
Hello Francis,
At our ODF TC call today we reviewed the NB DCOR2 ballot comments. Our
analysis and recommendations follow.
For the comments from DIN, on the page and line number references, these
concern defects in the editing instructions as presented in the DCOR text.
The OASIS Errata do not have these defects since the OASIS presentation
of the editing instructions was different. Since the underlying
corrections made by the DCOR2 editing instructions are correct. we
recommend that the Project Editor supply the missing page and line numbers
for these items in the published corrigenda.
The JISC comment, concerning the XSL reference in 15.4.19, does not appear
to correspond to any submitted NB defect report on IS 26300, Our
understanding was that WG6 agreed previously that any additional defect
reports on IS 26300 would be applied after the FPDAM. We've been
operating under this assumption in the ODF TC, and have made our ODF 1.1
planning and editing work based on this understanding. So rather than put
the COR out of sync with the OASIS Errata by expanding the scope of the
DCOR to include new defects, we recommend that we stick to the plan of
synching on the amendment. With that plan, the ODF TC would publish an
Errata for ODF 1.1 that would reconcile the OASIS text to incorporate
relevant changes from the published ODF 1.0 Errata, as well as any
necessary changes based on FPDAM ballot comments. The easiest way to
ensure the Japan defect is addressed there is to submit that as an FPDAM
comment. This could be done by Japan or by OASIS. (This particular
defect is already fixed in the ODF 1.,2 text).
Regards,
-Rob
More information about the sc34wg6
mailing list