[SPAM] Re: PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500

[Shawn Villaron]

I just re-read the changes associated with the set of Percentages-related changes.  I believe that Mohamed's review is correct.  We are introducing a new restriction for STRICT compliant files as we now require the "%" sign in places where the original 29500 standard does not.  Based on this observation, and our agreed-upon guidance from Prague, I believe that this falls under AMD1, as Mohamed has suggested.  

I also went through my notes regarding guidance on the COR/AMD issue.  As far as my notes indicate, the only applicable clause that applies here is the one that talks about breaking changes.  I don't have notes that talk about incorrect execution of BRM issues automatically going into COR ...

This appears to be a simple mistake and one that is easily fixed, if we can get consensus from the group.  

Thanks,

shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Horton, Gareth [mailto:horton at datawatch.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:49 AM
To: Innovimax SARL; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
Cc: SC 34 WG4
Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500

Mohamed,

As far as I can see, this only makes existing Strict documents invalid against the schema, which they already are (if they exist!), due to the namespace change.

In the COR for Part 4, the schema is changed to allow both the new and the old representations, meaning existing ECMA376-1 documents containing integer values will be valid as Transitional documents. (40. §A.1, “WordprocessingML”, p. 813, lines 112–117)


Gareth

-----Original Message-----
From: Innovimax SARL [mailto:innovimax at gmail.com] 
Sent: 06 July 2009 16:06
To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
Cc: SC 34 WG4
Subject: [SPAM] Re: PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500

Dear,

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY
Given)<eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
> Mohamed was surprised to see the Percentage Related stuff in the COR.
> On the other hand, I have thought that it should certainly be covered by
> the COR, because (1) the omission of the % symbol is an unintentional error
> in implementing a BRM resolution, (2) none of the existing data become
> invalid, and (3) no singificant new features are added.  How do other
> members feel?

I don't agree with (2)

My understanding of "512. §A.1, “WordprocessingML”, p. 4347, lines
108–113", is that it is no more allowed to use values without
pourcentage (which is good) so existing document that are not using
percentage symbol are invalid according to the schema

Cheers,

Mohamed




-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €