PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500

[Rex Jaeschke]

So far, I have heard only agreement (and no opposition) to move certain DR fixes from the COR1 bin to the AMD1 bin.

Mohamed/Shawn, can you please identify which specific DR numbers you think should be moved? We'll need to approve this on one of our up-coming calls.

Rex


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Villaron [mailto:shawnv at microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 12:59 PM
> To: Horton, Gareth; Innovimax SARL; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
> Cc: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500
> 
> 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 �