DCOR 2 comments

[Francis Cave]

Hi Rob

I agree entirely with your analysis.

Regards,

Francis



> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 04 May 2011 00:11
> To: francis at franciscave.com
> Cc: sc34wg6 at vse.cz
> Subject: RE: DCOR 2 comments
> 
> 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
> >