Problem with a decision made on last week's WG4 telcon

[Rex Jaeschke]

If you recall that some of the other changes you proposed also involved
fixing incorrect namespaces.

For example, WG4-0002 Part 1, Item 85 (§15.2.12.1, “Core File Properties
Part”, p. 155) The original Source Relationship is incorrect and, in any
event, should not be changed as shown. Agreed to remove this item. (GB will
submit a DR to correct the original Source Relationship.)

The original proposal from you was to replace the incorrect namespace. I
argued that that was outside the scope of WG4's work, which was to process
the NB comments, and this comment came from committee review after the end
of the ballot. You then agreed that instead we'd remove the incorrect
"correction" from the FDAM and that the correction to the namespace would be
done in the future once a new DR has been submitted. (We also wanted to
avoid the possibility of NBs objecting to the fact that substantive changes
were made by WG4 after the ballot closed but had no basis from within the NB
comments, as that would require us to go back and re-do the 4-month SC 34
ballot.)

We also agreed on this for WG4-0003 Part 1, item 75.

>From that point on the meeting you skipped over comments that fell into the
same category.

So my guess is that the "second half of this issue" fell into the same
category and would be handled by a new DR. In any event, the minutes from
last week's teleconference have no record of that "second half of this
issue".

Regards,

Rex



> -----Original Message-----
> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:29 PM
> To: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: Re: Problem with a decision made on last week's WG4 telcon
> 
> You wrote:
> > This fixes errors in examples, which are non-normative.
> 
> But the second half of this issue is:
> 
> > The FPDAM1 for Part 1 should replace the (incorrect) namespaces
> > by
> > http://purl.oclc.org/ooxml/drawingml/main
> > and
> > http://purl.oclc.org/ooxml/drawingml/diagram.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > As such, it does NOT
> > meet the criteria for being in an amendment.
> > As such, I have NOT included
> > this in the amendment. Instead, it should be submitted as a DR for
> the next
> > COR.
> 
> We have used an amendment for namespace name changes.  Should we
> wait for another amendment?
> 
> Cheers,
> Makoto