DCOR 2 comments

[robert_weir at us.ibm.com]

Hi Francis,

Our primary response to N 924 was DCOR1, not DCOR2.  So if you want to see 
what happened to this comment, you need to go back to comments on DCOR1.

Looking back at that, it looks like the defect was missed initially by 
OASIS.  Then, multiple attempts by Murata-san to raise it again failed due 
to his referring to the wrong section number.

See for example, the comments on the OASIS public review (comment #6):

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200812/msg00001.html

And see the last Japanese NB comments on DCOR1:

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/def/1566.pdf

In both cases the comment was saying that the XSL reference in 15.4.1 was 
incorrect.  This is not true.  The problem is in 15.4.19.  So each time 
Murata-san raised the issue, we said, "No change", since indeed the issue 
he was raising was incorrect. 

It looks like there was general confusion caused by the false defect 
report in #30 that many of us confused for the nearly identical, but 
correct defect reported in #33. 

In the disposition of comments from DCOR1, the Project Editor responded:

"No action taken. The original comment (SC 34 N 0942, comment 30) was 
rejected because the reference in 15.4.1 in ISO/IEC 26300:2006 is to 
subsection 7.8.8 of XSL, which is
correct. On further investigation it would appear that there is an 
incorrect reference to subsection 8.8.1 of [XSL] in clause 15.4.19, which 
should be to subsection 7.8.4 of [XSL], as
proposed in the original comment. It is proposed to correct this in 
ISO/IEC 26300:2006/Amd 1, which is currently under preparation."

In any case, I am deeply sorry that this error is still in the text, but I 
think that the Project Editor's recommendation from DCOR1 is still the 
right one, that we synch this up with the FPDAM comments.

Regards,

-Rob

"Francis Cave" <francis at franciscave.com> wrote on 05/03/2011 05:57:51 PM:

> From: "Francis Cave" <francis at franciscave.com>
> To: <robert_weir at us.ibm.com>
> Cc: <sc34wg6 at vse.cz>
> Date: 05/03/2011 06:02 PM
> Subject: RE: DCOR 2 comments
> 
> Hi Rob
> 
> For the record, the Japanese comment corresponds exactly to DR 33 in the
> first set of Japanese Defect Reports - see SC 34 N 942. 
> 
> I forget the detail, but I think there is an error in one of the other
> Japanese DRs relating to XSL in that first set of DRs, and I think this
> caused this particular DR to be overlooked. It clearly slipped passed 
all of
> us at the crucial moment.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Francis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir at us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: 03 May 2011 01:14
> > To: francis at franciscave.com
> > Cc: sc34wg6 at vse.cz
> > Subject: DCOR 2 comments
> > 
> > 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
>