<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Dear members of SC 34/WG 6<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Further to recent emails about ODF 1.1 Errata, it is probably worth bringing you up to date on other matters.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>ODF 1.2<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I understand that it is still the intention of OASIS to submit ODF 1.2 to JTC 1 under the PAS procedure, but preparation for this has taken considerably longer than originally anticipated. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>You are reminded that, under current JTC 1 rules, a PAS submission is circulated for a five-month DIS ballot, and in the event of there being significant comments and a Ballot Resolution Meeting, a further two-month FDIS ballot after that. Both ballots are conducted by JTC 1 under the combined voting procedure, allowing all ISO and IEC members to vote and comment. According to JTC 1 Standing Document 9: Guide to PAS Transposition, the total elapsed period between submission and final approval for publication will therefore normally be between seven and eleven months. While individual expert members of WG 6 will undoubtedly be involved in the PAS ballot processes, WG 6 won’t have any role in the process until the standard enters the maintenance phase, and this assumes that OASIS propose (and JTC 1 approve) a similar maintenance regime to that we have currently for ISO/IEC 26300. In any case this will not occur much before the middle of 2014, assuming that submission is not significantly further delayed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>SC 34 meetings<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>SC 34 Working Groups 1, 4 and 5 are meeting in Seattle, 2013-06-17/20. Your attention is particularly drawn to the agenda of SC 34/WG 5 (Document Interoperability), which will be meeting on 2013-06-17, for which a draft agenda has been made available as SC 34 N 1905. The agenda includes discussion of a Chinese proposal on “Determination of document interoperability”. If you wish to attend the WG 5 meeting, or any other WG meeting in Seattle, your national committee that mirrors SC 34 will need to register you for the meetings with the SC 34 Secretariat.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The next SC 34 Plenary has not yet been officially announced, but is pretty certain to be hosted by NEN in Delft, NL, 2013-09-09/13, with Working Groups meeting during the week. It would be good to have held a teleconference meeting of WG 6 before the closing Plenary, so that as Convenor I can report some activity. However, this will depend upon how quickly we are able to move forward with responding to the ODF 1.1 Errata. My term of office as Convenor of WG 6 ends at the next SC 34 Plenary, so SC 34 will have to decide whether to re-appoint me or appoint a new Convenor. SC 34 will also be considering the results of a review of the terms of reference for each of its Working Groups (see SC 34 N 1863, N 1899 and N 1901), and the outcome of that review will have a bearing upon the future of all the Working Groups, including WG 6.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Francis Cave<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>WG 6 Convenor<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>