Comparisons of ISO 26300 to ODF 1.1
Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamilton at acm.org
Fri Jan 8 07:34:23 CET 2010
It is promising to see how close Patrick has been able to come in
mechanically producing a change-marked document that shows the differences
between IS 26300:2006 and the ODF 1.1 OASIS Standard. I've been examining
the change-marked PDFs a little bit and have the following advice for review
of the material.
- Dennis E. Hamilton
Member, OASIS ODF TC
Member, OASIS Liaison to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 WG6
1. FINDING AVAILABLE COPIES
The two documents are publicly available on the OASIS Site already. You can
access them for informal use until the submission to SC34 is posted (if you
have access there):
The summary and download page for this document is at
This is essentially IS 26300 (in terms of the OASIS 1.0 Second Edition
Committee Spec. 1 counterpart text). But it is IS 26300 as if it was made
by applying changes to the OASIS 1.1 Standard.
The summary and download page for this document is at
This is essentially the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard. But it is OASIS ODF 1.1
as if it was made by applying changes to IS 26300 (using the OASIS 1.0
Second Edition Committee Specification 01 corresponding text).
2.1 I personally recommend the second document,
OpenDocument-v1.1_compare_1.0_2ndEd.pdf, since it shows more clearly what is
different in 1.1 from the current IS 26300. This is the document that I
give my attention to in the remainder of this message.
2.2 The revision-markup comparison PDF has some inaccuracies at this
point. They seem to all be inconsequential with respect to technical
content. As Patrick points out, this a start in helping us get to an
appropriate amendment document, one that is technically equivalent to the
OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard.
3.1 The discrepancies I notice are of three kinds:
(a) Differences in the formal matter (covers, front matter, etc.) that
necessarily occur between the IS and the OASIS Standard
(b) Changes that are not reflected in revision marking (e.g., removals,
changes, and additions in headings and the table of content that are not
(c) Deletions of subsections where the subsequent subsections at the same
level have not been renumbered in the text
3.2 It is recommended that the revision-marked document be examined at
100% or greater to ensure that underlining is always apparent.
4. EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENCES IN FORMAL MATTER
4.1 ISO/IEC 26300:2006 has front-matter pages i-iv that are not reflected
in the change document.
4.2 The bottom margin copyright notice and filename are different between
26300:2006 and what appears in ODF 1.1, although the differences are not
noted in the comparison. An amendment would do this differently if a
replacement text were produced.
4.3 Pages 1-3 preceding the table of contents in ODF 1.1, are quite
different from the single page preceding the table of contents in IS 26300.
Many of these differences do not apply for an amendment.
4.4 There is an Appendix I that applies only to OASIS and is not
applicable to IS 26300 or its amendment.
5. EXAMPLES OF CHANGES NOT REFLECTED IN REVISION MARKING
These all appear to be inconsequential, although one needs to find and
examine them to be sure of that.
5.1 The OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard has nine Appendices, A-I. New Appendices
E and F are inserted for Accessibility Guidelines and guidelines on
presentation Bidirectional (BiDi) scripts and related information,
respectively. The IS 26300 Appendices E and F are renamed G and H. There
is a new section G.4 on changes from ODF 1.0 second edition (consequently,
IS 26300:2006 as well). These are change marked properly in the body of the
comparison PDF, just not noted in the table of contents. The table of
contents is not reliable for knowing what's new and what's gone at the level
the table goes to.
5.2 The comparison document page 1 title is shown as "Open Document
Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.1 and then (Second Edition)
is stricken. The change from v1.0 to v1.1 is NOT noted as a change.
5.3 In the 1.4 Relax-NG Schema section (comparison PDF page 34), the
change of version in line 3 is also not noted, nor is any of the change in
line 4 (although there is a change bar).
5.4 In the schema fragment for Text Document Model (comparison PDF page
42), a new line 179 (introducing text-soft-page-break) is shown as an
insertion, but it is not indicated that subsequent line numbers are changed.
This is minor so long as the material changes in the schema are shown, as
they are in the introduction of more schema at the added Use Soft Page
Breaks subsection (comparison document pages 43-44).
5.5 Sometime there are change marks with no apparent significance, as for
the heading "4.6.4 Deletion" (comparison PDF page 83).
5.7 The entire section "4.7 Soft Page Breaks" is new (comparison PDF page
83) and this is not noticed in the table of contents with any kind of change
5.8 There is a mystery around what should be the deletion of a period and
the addition of additional text just before the subsection on "Space
Character" (comparison PDF page 86).
6. EXAMPLES OF DELETION HOLES?
6.1 Section 9.3.9 Alternative Text (comparison PDF page 314) appears to
be deleted completely. The schema line 7100 there is essentially the same
text for the deleted line 7095. The subsequent sections are not renumbered
but the table of contents is. The Table of Contents has 9.3.9 Hyperlinks
(9.3.10 Hyperlinks in the text). 9.3.9 Hyperlinks in the Table of Contents
also goes to the wrong place entirely if followed as a link. (The ODF 1.1
specification does not have that problem and the section on Alternative Text
is simply gone.)
From: sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 16:15
To: sc34wg6 at vse.cz
Subject: Comparisons of ISO 26300 to ODF 1.1
I have posted to Toshiko auto-generated comparisons of the text that
became ISO 26300 with the text of ODF 1.1.
The first comparison starts with the ISO 26300 text and compares the ODF
The second comparison starts with the ODF 1.1 text and compares the text
that became ISO 26300.
These are informative postings that will hopefully help inform the form
of an amendment to ISO 26300 to make it concurrent with ODF 1.1 (and
thereafter to remain in synch).
Do note that the errata that have already been applied to the text of
ODF 1.0 and that compose a pending DCOR on ISO 26300 are not reflected
in these comparisons.
The thinking being that when an amended text is offered, in its liaison
role that the ODF TC/OASIS could offer those corrections as comments to
the amendment text and so the final result would be the fully concurrent
text that is the goal.
Hope everyone is looking forward to a great weekend!
patrick at durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
sc34wg6 mailing list
sc34wg6 at vse.cz
More information about the sc34wg6